Evaluation of impact and outcomes of the ninth session of ... · Overview of WUF9 WUF9 was the first large-scale event on urban development after the adoption of the New Urban Agenda

Evaluation of impact and outcomes of the ninth session of the World Urban Forum - WUF9

Evaluation Report 1/2019

April 2019

This report is available from http://www.unhabitat.org/evaluationFirst published in Nairobi in April 2019 by UN-Habitat.Copyright © United Nations Human Settlements Programme 2018Produced by the Evaluation UnitUnited Nations Human Settlements Programme (UN-Habitat)P. O. Box 30030, 00100 Nairobi GPO KENYATel: +254 020-762-3120 (Central Office)www.unhabitat.org

DISCLAIMERThe designations employed and the presentation of the material in this publication do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Secretariat of the United Nations concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. Views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect those of the United Nations Human Settlements Programme, the United Nations, or its Member States.

AcknowledgementsThe evaluator wishes to thank all the individuals who completed surveys, participated in interviews, and were consulted as part of the evaluation. Without their contributions, it would not have been possible to analyse the process and results of WUF9.

Author: Ilde LambrechtsDesign and Layout: Michael LusabaCover photo: © UN-HABITAT/ Jeremias Thomas

TABLE OF CONTENTSEXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................................1

1. INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................8

Background and context ....................................................................................................................8

Mandate, purpose, objective, scope and management of evaluation................................8

Report structure .................................................................................................................................. 10

PART ONE .............................................................................................................................. 11

2. WUF9 OVERVIEW ................................................................................................................ 11

3. METHODOLOGY OF EVALUATION ...................................................................................17

Approach and methodology ............................................................................................................ 17

Evaluation questions ..........................................................................................................................19

Data collection and analysis .......................................................................................................... 20

Limitations to the evaluation ............................................................................................................21

PART TWO ............................................................................................................................22

4. OVERVIEW AND ANALYSIS OF EVENTS ....................................................................... 22

Opening and closing ceremonies .................................................................................................24

High-level roundtables .................................................................................................................... 26

Dialogues ..............................................................................................................................................27

Assemblies ...........................................................................................................................................27

Special sessions ................................................................................................................................ 29

Stakeholder roundtables ................................................................................................................. 29

UN-Habitat in Action Room ............................................................................................................ 30

AFINUA Room .......................................................................................................................................31

Listen to Cities Room/local action ..................................................................................................31

One UN Room .....................................................................................................................................32

Networking events .............................................................................................................................32

Side events ...........................................................................................................................................33

Training events ....................................................................................................................................33

Urban talks ............................................................................................................................................34

City events & WUF9 village .............................................................................................................34

Technical visits .....................................................................................................................................35

Parallel events .....................................................................................................................................35

Urban library .........................................................................................................................................36

Exhibition ...............................................................................................................................................36

IV | EVALUATION OF IMPACT AND OUTCOMES OF THE NINTH SESSION OF THE WORLD URBAN FORUM

PART THREE .........................................................................................................................38

5. SYNTHESIS OF THE FINDINGS ....................................................................................... 38

The overall Forum ..............................................................................................................................38

Relevance .............................................................................................................................................39

Effectiveness ........................................................................................................................................42

Efficiency ...............................................................................................................................................47

Impact and sustainability ................................................................................................................. 52

Cross-cutting issues .......................................................................................................................... 55

6. KEY CONCLUSIONS ...........................................................................................................57

7. LESSONS LEARNED .......................................................................................................... 58

8. RECOMMENDATIONS ....................................................................................................... 59

ANNEX 1: Terms of reference .................................................................................................................. 62

ANNEX 2: Working arrangements of the World Urban Forum ......................................................70

ANNEX 3: List of persons interviewed ..................................................................................................73

ANNEX 4: WUF9 income and expenditure for UN-Habitat as of February 2019 ....................74

ANNEX 5: Bibliography ..............................................................................................................................76

ANNEX 6: WUF9 evaluation framework ............................................................................................... 77

| VEVALUATION OF IMPACT AND OUTCOMES OF THE NINTH SESSION OF THE WORLD URBAN FORUM

LIST OF TABLESTable 1: WUF9 fact sheetTable 2: Overview of the different forumsTable 3: Standard types of intermediate capacity outcomes and institutional capacity areas applied in the evaluationTable 4: Overview of the WUF9 main sessions and their subjectsTable 5: Overview of the all WUF9 events and their appreciation

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: World Urban Forum 9 – results chainFigure 2: Capacity development cycleFigure 3: Overview of Forums held so far and the number of participantsFigure 4: Change outcomes as targeted in different WUF9 events

Figure 5: Change as a result in the capacity of participantsFigure 6: Institutional change objectives as targeted in the different WUF9 eventsFigure 7: Institutional change objectives achieved in participantsFigure 8: The WUF9 call for volunteers on twitter

LIST OF BOXES

Box 1: Upcoming themes urban development - ShrinkageBox 2: Partners organizing WUF9

VI | EVALUATION OF IMPACT AND OUTCOMES OF THE NINTH SESSION OF THE WORLD URBAN FORUM

LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

AFINUA Action Framework for the Implementation of the New Urban AgendaCD Capacity DevelopmentCPR Committee of Permanent Representatives EA Expected AccomplishmentECOSOC United Nations Economic and Social CouncilERG Evaluation Reference GroupGA General AssemblyGC Governing CouncilHAP Habitat Agenda PartnersHCPD Habitat Country Programme Document ICOs Intermediate Capacity OutcomesIFI International Financial InstitutionLGBTI Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and IntersexMoUs Memorandum of Understanding

NUA New Urban AgendaNUF National Urban ForumNUP National Urban PolicyPSC Amount Programme Support CostRBM Results-Based ManagementRUF Regional Urban ForumSDGs Sustainable Development GoalsThe Forum 9th Session of the World Urban ForumTOC Theory of ChangeUN United NationsUN-Habitat United Nations Human Settlements ProgrammeUM URBANICE Malaysia (WUF9 Local Organizing Committee)WUF World Urban ForumWUF9 Ninth Session of the World Urban Forum

Executive summary

WUF9 context

The Ninth Session of the World Urban Forum (WUF9) took place from 7 to 13 February 2018 in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. The Forum is held every two years and gathers a wide range of experts in the field of sustainable urban development and human settlements. It is held in a different host city and country biennially. UN-Habitat serves as the convener and secretariat1 of the Forum at UN-Habitat headquarters in Nairobi, Kenya. Its innovative and inclusive nature, combined with high-level participation therein, makes it a unique event and the world’s premier international

gathering on urban issues.

Mandate, purpose and objective of the evaluation

The Governing Council of UN-Habitat requested the Executive Director, through Resolution 26/6 and in consultation with the Committee of Permanent Representatives (CPR), to assess the impact and outcome of each session of the Forum using a results-based approach, including various evaluation tools and mechanisms. The evaluation period ended one year after the celebration of WUF9, allowing for a reasonable time to measure

impact outlooks and outcomes. The evaluation started in June 2018 and was finalized in March 2019. The evaluation includes the assessment of the achievement of WUF9 expected accomplishments (EA) and performance in the context of the WUF Programme. The evaluation aims at promoting learning and knowledge sharing and is expected to be instrumental in providing recommendations for the effective implementation of the remaining period of the programme 2018-2023. The programme was approved in 2017 for a period of six years, 2018-2023.

The key users of the evaluation are UN-Habitat management and staff, the governing bodies,

1 United Nations Human Settlements Programme (2002), Report of the First Session of the World Urban Forum, Nairobi. Art 13 and; GC Resolution 26/6

donors, partners, experts in urban development, policymakers, and other key stakeholders. The evaluation was carried out as a corporate assessment, conducted by the external consultant, Ilde Lambrechts. UN-Habitat’s Evaluation Unit managed and provided support to the appraisal process. The WUF Secretariat was responsible for providing information and documentation as required as well as for the coordination with relevant WUF stakeholders for the provision of information. The evaluation process was guided by an Evaluation Reference Group.

Approach and methodology of evaluation

The evaluation determined performance of the relevance, efficiency, effectiveness and impact of the organizations’ activities in relation to their objectives as systematically and objectively as possible. It aimed to assess outcomes and longer-term impacts using a results-based approach by tracking the results chain and applying tailored indicators. To achieve this, the evaluation shifted the focus from “growth” to “transformational change”. Outcomes that are most likely to be sustained beyond the delivery of WUF are those that reflect changes in the working of institutions

and local urban service delivery towards reaching sustainable development.

The evaluation applied the “theory of change approach” with the WUF Programme logframe as its main tool. The evaluation used a framework to measure change - capacity development in the Forum at two levels, namely: (i) measuring the intermediate capacity outcomes at the level of WUF participants; and (ii) measuring change at the level of the institutional capacity areas. These are aligned to the WUF9 expected accomplishments. The evaluation complemented the theory of change approach with the “systems approach” to help identify issues and explain links that the theory of change does not accomplish as well.

| 1EVALUATION OF IMPACT AND OUTCOMES OF THE NINTH SESSION OF THE WORLD URBAN FORUM

The evaluation of WUF9 further assessed the mainstreaming of the cross-cutting issues of gender, youth, climate change, and human rights. The evaluation was guided by 10 questions allowing for focus on key points, thus targeting data collection for in-depth analysis.

The evaluation used analytic as well as holistic or synthetic data collection techniques. They included: (i) a literature review; (ii) semi-structured interviews via Skype and in person in Belgium, Kenya and Malaysia; and (iii) surveys. The surveys included the On-Site Participant Survey, the WUF9 Participant Impact Survey, and the UN-Habitat Staff Survey.

Limitations to the evaluation included: (i) an extensive scope; (ii) a complex scope of events; and (iii) a far-reaching impact of many external factors that were difficult to attribute to WUF.

Overview of WUF9

WUF9 was the first large-scale event on urban development after the adoption of the New Urban Agenda during the Habitat III Conference in October 2016. The Ninth Urban Forum was also the first to focus on its implementation. The Forum was hosted by the Government of Malaysia and took place in the nation’s capital, Kuala Lumpur.

The theme of WUF9 was Cities 2030, Cities for All: Implementing the New Urban Agenda.

The target populations who benefit directly from the Forum are the New Urban Agenda Partners and decision makers, national and subnational government representatives, and parliamentarians in particular. Other beneficiaries include academia, civil society and grassroots organizations, the private sector, and the general public.

The Government of Malaysia contributed 6 million United States dollars (USD) to the Forum. An amount of USD 4 million was deposited to UN-Habitat of which 99 per cent was used. The remaining USD 2 million was used to implement activities to support the Forum’s organization

2 This is the stated purpose (or objective) indicated in WUF Project Document 2018–2023.

in Malaysia. The Government contributed an additional USD 5 million in kind to this effort.

WUF9 aimed at (i) advancing the coordinated implementation of the New Urban Agenda; (ii) raising UN-Habitat’s profile as a leading agency in the field of urbanization; and (iii) consolidating UN-Habitat’s knowledge base with the conference outcomes incorporated in the agency’s strategies and work from the normative to the operation level.2 The expected accomplishments or short-term results as indicated in the WUF9 logframe are the following:

EA1. Awareness is raised on sustainable urban development among stakeholders and

constituencies, including the public at large.

EA2. Collective knowledge on sustainable urban development is improved through inclusive open debates; sharing of lessons learned; and the exchange of urban solutions, good practices, and policies.

EA3. Coordination and cooperation are increased within the United Nations system and with different stakeholders and constituencies for an effective implementation of the New Urban Agenda and the urban dimension of the Sustainable Development Goals.

EA4.Substantive and strategic inputs from multilateral organizations, national and subnational governments and stakeholders are provided into the reporting of the implementation of the New Urban Agenda (in line with Op. 167 of the New Urban Agenda).

EA5. UN-Habitat’s profile is raised, and strategic programming supported with specific focus on the six-year strategic plan and biennial work programme and budget.

2 | EVALUATION OF IMPACT AND OUTCOMES OF THE NINTH SESSION OF THE WORLD URBAN FORUM

Synthesis of findings

WUF9 affirmed that the Forum convened by UN-Habitat is the world’s premier conference on cities and sustainable urbanization. More than 24,000 people gathered in Kuala Lumpur to renew their commitments towards the implementation of the New Urban Agenda, and recognized the Forum’s role as an accelerator for the achievement of the Agenda 2030 and the Goals.

The Ninth Forum facilitated around 18 different sessions including opening and closing ceremonies, exhibitions and media conferences. The premier thematic events included six high-level roundtables, one ministers roundtable,

eight dialogues, four assemblies, and 21 special sessions. The most appreciated events according to the on-site participant survey were, in order of preference, training, networking, special sessions, exhibitions, dialogues.

The Ninth Forum introduced a number of new and innovative activities to include a diverse range of stakeholders beyond national governments and to maximize the involvement of UN-Habitat’s regional offices. Examples of this innovation include stakeholder roundtables offering a platform for their participation and grassroots assemblies. This Forum also promoted United Nations collaborative action in a number of

dedicated events. A total of 60 training events, the largest of any WUF, were organized as part of capacity development for the implementation of the Agenda.

Achievement of expected accomplishments (outcomes)

EA1. Most (that is 92 per cent) of the participants in the WUF9 participant impact survey found that WUF9 somehow or effectively raised their awareness of sustainable urban development. They testified that they now had a better understand their role in implementing the Agenda and were more motivated and confident to do so. Interviews held in the context of this evaluation in Malaysia, for example, demonstrated that professionals in different institutions, inspired by the Forum, were more motivated and confident and were already planning new initiatives.

EA2. Most or 93 per cent of the participants in the participant impact survey and most interviewees found that WUF9 somehow or effectively enhanced their knowledge on sustainable urban development. Nearly 40 per cent of the Forum’s sessions targeted the enhancement of knowledge and skills, especially those events that were organized under the responsibility of UN-Habitat’s thematic branches.

In all interviews conducted in the context of this evaluation, respondents were asked about what they learnt from the Forum. They said that they learnt most from the experiences of other countries about working in a more integrated

manner, being more open towards other cultures and groups, and exposure to many other topics. The UN-Habitat’s staff also learnt from experiences around the world. However, interviewees from developing countries were more critical. The majority of these respondents did not attend the Forum to enhance their knowledge. They came to be inspired. Some found that this expectation went largely unfulfilled; others expressed boredom.

EA3. WUF9 increased coordination and cooperation within the United Nations system and with different stakeholders and constituencies. In all, 143 networking events focused exclusively on

networking and partnerships. Many participants proposed to make the format of networking and training events more participatory. They suggested more active forms of engagement through diverse and innovative platforms.

Many participants came to the Forum to make new partnerships and meet potential donors. Participants from developing countries wanted to connect internationally and had the opportunity to do so, including the Commonwealth Association of Planners, with International Society of City and Regional Planners, and with the Royal Town Planning Institute of the United Kingdom. Malaysia focused on expanding its regional network. High profile participants admitted that they meet the same people at different fora during the year. They especially want to exchange experiences with other, non-conventional partners such as with specific non-governmental organizations.


EA4. WUF9 was conceived as a milestone and one of the platforms providing input into reporting on the Agenda. The session reports delivered at the end of the Forum include resolutions and commitments of partners to report on the implementation of the Agenda. Participants proposed new ideas, such as engaging young people in reporting on the Agenda. The WUF9 indicator (an online platform on the UN-Habitat website) was not achieved, nor did the evaluation find other structures that were put in place. There remains confusion about reporting on the Agenda and on the SDGs.

EA5. WUF9 raised UN-Habitat’s profile. Interviews conducted in the context of this evaluation

revealed a positive image of UN-Habitat as they showcased their competence in high-quality sessions.

Overall performance of WUF9 in relation to the objective(s)

When asked how they applied the results of WUF9 in the workplace, the participant impact survey revealed that the Forum equally achieved (i) strengthening the participants’ ownership with regards to the implementation of the New Urban Agenda, and (ii) improved the efficiency of policy instruments. “Strengthened efficient

organizational arrangements” into implementing the New Urban Agenda was the weakest (EA3) addressed by WUF9.

Relevance The Forum’s overall objective is advancing sustainable urban development, and the ninth Forum was the first to refine that objective as reporting on the effective implementation of the New Urban Agenda. Nevertheless, participants and stakeholder groups felt that the objectives of the Forum had not been clearly communicated and the evaluation revealed that participants had diverse perceptions and expectations of the Forum. Some interviewees felt that the objective of the Forum should be much more ambitious aiming to addres the challenges of urbanization in the overall context of the global development agenda.

EfficiencyThere is broad recognition that the Forum was successful and participants praised the achievements of Malaysia in hosting it, including the organization of the exhibitions. However, the input of some thematic branches diminished and the secretariat of the Forum took charge, led by the advocacy, outreach and communications branch. The Forum suffered from late mobilization in its final preparations, placing significant pressure on event organizers, including UN-Habitat staff.

EffectivenessThe sessions organized directly by UN-Habitat primarily targeted transfer of knowledge and

skills, while events organized by partners were more effective in facilitating networking and creating synergies. A number of participants felt that the urgency of sustainable urbanization had been insufficiently discussed, which was perceived as a lost opportunity.

Impact and sustainability The Forum strengthened the role of UN-Habitat as a focal point in the United Nations focal point to support countries and mobilize stakeholders in the implementation, follow-up and review of the New Urban Agenda. The Forum generated many new partnerships and 20 memoranda of understanding were signed with UN-Habitat

during the evant alone. United Nations agencies, funds and programmes expressed their intention to work more closely with UN-Habitat and each other, also pleding to enhance collaboration with private sector in the pursuit of sustainable urban development.

Cross-cutting issues of gender, youth, climate and human rights

The evalution found that the Forum was committed to ensuring gender balance, including by avoiding constituting planes with only male panellists. Of the respondents to the participant impact survey, 47 per cent were women and 53 per cent men, which approaches gender balance based on forum attendance. The Forum organized dedicated events for children and youth, which were perceived as highly innovative and were among the most successful events, as


they were found to give voice to people who are otherwise not heard. Climate change received significant attention and was an important theme for all the participants, as was the need to increase collaboration with the private sector on climate change. The Forum promoted a vision for cities that was grounded in human rights and recognized the need to give particular attention to addressing multiple forms of discrimination.

Key conclusions

1. Confirmation of the Forum as the world’s premier international gathering on urban issues.

WUF9 was rated a highly successful global gathering. UN-Habitat and the Government of Malaysia should be commended. The gathering recorded the largest attendance of all such Forums. Inevitably there were some challenges.

2. The Forum as an event and a change project Participants and stakeholder groups of

diverse backgrounds came with their own views and expectations of the Forum. Some came with specific objectives to strengthen their capacities to advance sustainable development such as to gather specific knowledge on technical innovations, or they

wanted to meet certain partners and expand their network.

Ultimately, they all came to support the implementation of the New Urban Agenda to advance sustainable urban development. Some see the Forum as an event, a happy gathering of urban thinkers from across the globe, which creates synergies and allows attendees to take away new ideas and approaches to advance sustainable urban development in their workplace.

3. From generic to local solutions On the one hand, WUF emphasizes the need

to strengthen urban sustainable development strategies on the global agenda. On the other,

3 PAG comments: suggestions on the EAs and others were made but rejected. Evaluator comments: PAG report was requested from WUF Secretariat but not received.

there was an increasing demand to discuss specific issues regarding the implementation at the local level. Participants found the discourse on local solutions in specific countries especially inspiring.

4. A rising demand for participation and co-production

Although UN-Habitat convenes and coordinates the World Urban Forum, it does not own the gathering. That belongs to all stakeholders in urban development. Partners and constituencies clearly want to be more involved in setting the Forum’s agenda and organizing its events.

5. A demand to know results of the Forum WUF9’s results chain or logframe was not very

useful for this evaluation. The logframe does not show how this Forum’s different events lead to achieving the expected results.3

Lessons learned

Key lessons from the evaluation included a need to address the lack of clarity on the objective of the Forum; the incomplete Forum results chain; the demand for results-based management; the need for the Forum to belong to all participants;

the understanding of the Forum as a universal event with different dimensions; an awareness that the goals of UN-Habitat and the Forum are not necessarily interchangeable; and a need to clarify and update the working arrangements defined in annex IV to the report of the first Forum in 2002.

1. The objective of the Forum is not clear This created confusion among participants,

who had varied expectations that could not all be met, which in turn diverted the thematic focus during certain events. The evaluation found that the Forum was perceived by some as an event in its own right and by others as a capacity-building and change project, to bring transformational changes in the effectiveness


of the Forum, including efficiency of policy instruments and strengthened ownership of stakeholders.

2. The results chain of the Forum is incomplete The results chain in the logic framework

of the Forum programme is incomplete, as only expected accomplishments are currently shown. The indicators should be better targeted, as most are still growth indicators, despite the focus of the Forum being on fostering transformative change for the achievement of sustainable urban development.

3. There is a demand for results-based

management Participants want to be able to measure and

be apprised of the results of the Forum. Some participants have started to evaluate their own events. UN-Habitat staff also want to showcase the results of the Forum and the impact of their work to partners. Future sessions of the Forum should therefore be organized to highlight the achievement of the planned objectives.

4. The Forum belongs to all the participants The New Urban Agenda highlights the

importance of effective coordination and cooperation to achieve sustainable urban development. The evaluation revealed

that stakeholders and partners in urban development demand greater participation and increased interaction in Forum events to foster joint ownership. There is a certain fatigue with the format of speeches and panel discussions in the events directly organized by UN-Habitat.

5. The Forum is a universal event with different intended results (outcomes)

According to the participant impact survey, 20 per cent of respondents found that the Forum very much enhanced their knowledge of sustainable urban development, while only 8 per cent said that they would apply the acquired knowledge in their workplace. Some interviewees were not focused on the New Urban Agenda or even the Sustainable Development Goals. They wanted to be inspired and to change the course of urban development. They were not interested

in resolutions or evidence-based policies, wishing rather to address the reality of conditions on the planet. They expected hard measures and firm commitments from all participants. The Forum has grown so large that some participants found it overwhelming due to practical, organizational and venue considerations and the abundance of events, which was sometimes confusing.

6. UN-Habitat and the Forum do not have interchangeable goals

Expected accomplishment 5 is to raise the profile of UN-Habitat. The evaluation found that the Forum had strengthened the image of UN-Habitat vis-à-vis its partners

and had strengthened internal collaboration within the Programme. However, expected accomplishment 5 underplays the strong energy of participants at the Forum inspiring each other, as opposed to UN-Habitat inspiring the participants. There is a need to make a distinction between the objective of the Forum and the aspirations of UN-Habitat.

7. The working arrangements needs clarification

The working arrangements formulated in annex IV to the report on the first Forum in 2002 have been gradually adapted in different Forums, but the changes have not

been formally endorsed. That has led to ambiguities in working arrangements, roles and responsibilities and created tensions in December 2017 in the lead-up to the ninth Forum.

Recommendations

1. Set clear objectives for the WUF UN-Habitat should set and clearly

communicate the overall objectives of the World Urban Forum in its documents, including in the project document and in the concept note, clarifying that the Forum is both an event and a transformative project. The overall objective or longer-term results of the Forum should not be confused with its overall expected accomplishments or the direct results of events from the events of each Forum.


2. Remove the result of rasing the profile of UN-Habitat from the results framework of the Forum

UN-Habitat should treat that result and the result related to support for strategic programming with specific focus on the implementation of the draft strategic plan of the United Nations Human Settlements Programme for the period 2020 – 2025 and the biennial work programme and budget as a side effect, rather than as an expected accomplishment of the Forum. UN-Habitat should consider internal teambuilding events, separate from the Forum, to strengthen collaboration and synergy between the Programme’s headquarters and its regional

offices.

3. Revise the logical framework for the Forum;s programme for 2018-2023

4. Learn from partners and change WUF event formats

UN-Habitat should revise the Forum’s results chain and logical framework by (i) clearly indicating the Forum’s overall objective; (ii) defining the capacity development cycle and change process; (iii) fine-tuning its coordination and cooperation concept to target specific groups that require dedicated measures; and (iv) developing corresponding indicators. Each

of the Forum’s events should have dedicated objectives and a target audience.

5. Develop and sustain the change and capacity-building cycle

Besides the current focus on enhancing knowledge and skills, UN-Habitat should develop specific events targeting awareness-raising, networking and implementation, heightening the thematic focus and ambition of its events. UN-Habitat should go beyond seeing the Forum as an event and embrace it as a transformative process, meaning that

it should improve the capacity development cycle and change process of the events, targeting specific change agents and shaping events accordingly.

6. Focus on quality and content rather than growth

UN-Habitat should not aspire to increase participant numbers, as the Forum has grown sufficiently, but should instead concentrate on the quality and content of the events. Limiting the duration of the Forum should also be considered. Rather than focusing on innovation, themes should be disruptive, promoting uncomfortable topics, including shrinkage versus growth,

less anthropocentrism and greater focus on flora and fauna, restructuring the spatial environment and circular urban economies.

7. Update the working arrangements of the Forum

UN-Habitat should revise the working arrangements of the Forum, as set out in annex IV to the report of the first Forum in 2002, so that they do not focus solely on urban development. In addition, the Programme has changed dramatically over the past fifteen years. The new working arrangements should be discussed with partners and should be based on the

recommendations of successive Forums.

8. Include capacity development within the results chain of the Forum

UN-Habitat should articulate and define capacity development in the results chain to enhance the effective delivery of the Forum and strengthen the focus on achieving results rather than outputs. The results chain of the Forum should use a framework to measure change and capacity development on two levels, namely at the individual or group level and at the institutional level.


1. Introduction

Background and context

UN-Habitat is mandated by the United Nations General Assembly (GA) to promote socially and environmentally sustainable human settlement development and achieve adequate shelter for all. It is the focal point for all urbanization and human settlement matters within the United Nations system.

The object of this evaluation is the Ninth Session of the World Urban Forum (WUF9) that took place in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, from 7 to 13 February 2018. The Forum gathers a wide range of experts in sustainable urban development and human settlements. It is held biennially in a different

host city and country. UN-Habitat serves as the convener and the secretariat of the Forum and is based at the UN-Habitat headquarters in Nairobi, Kenya. The innovative and inclusive nature of the Forum, combined with high-level participation, makes it a unique United Nations event and the world’s premier international gathering on urban issues.4

The Forum is being convened pursuant to Governing Council (GC) resolution 18/5 of 16 February 2001 in which the UN-Habitat Executive Director was requested “to promote a merger of the Urban Environment Forum and the International Forum on Urban Poverty into a

new urban forum, with a view to strengthening the coordination of international support to the implementation of the Habitat Agenda”.

Subsequently, the General Assembly decided, in its resolution 56/206 of 21 December 2001, that the Forum would be “a non-legislative technical forum in which experts could exchange views in the years when the Governing Council of the United Nations Human Settlements Programme did not meet. At the same session, the GA encouraged local authorities and other Habitat Agenda partners to participate, as appropriate, in the Forum in its role as an advisory body to the Executive Director of UN-Habitat.5”

4 Governing Council, resolution 26/6 World Urban Forum.5 General Assembly resolution 56/205 of 26 February 2002.

The General Assembly in resolution 56/205 from 2002, “invites local authorities and other Habitat Agenda partners to contribute to the implementation of the Habitat Agenda and the Declaration on Cities and other Human Settlements in the New Millennium, and encourages them to participate, as appropriate, in the Urban Forum”.

Mandate, purpose, objective, scope and management of the evaluation

Mandate, purpose and objective of the evaluation

The Governing Council of UN-Habitat through its resolution 26/6 requested the Executive Director, in consultation with the Committee of Permanent Representatives (CPR), to assess the impact and outcome of each session of the Forum using a results-based approach, including various evaluation tools and mechanisms.

The main purpose of the evaluation is to assess impact and outcomes of the ninth Forum. The evaluation period ended one year after the celebration of the Forum, allowing reasonable time in which impact outlooks and outcomes could be measured. The evaluation started in June 2018 and was finalized in March 2019.

The evaluation includes the assessment of the achievement of the expected accomplishments and performance, aims at promoting learning and knowledge sharing to improve future WUFs, and is expected to be instrumental in providing recommendations for the effective implementation of the remaining period of the WUF Programme 2018-2023. Specifically, the evaluation determines as systematically and objectively as possible the relevance, efficiency, effectiveness and impact of Forum’s activities in relation to its objectives. The evaluation identifies impact, outcomes, achievements, lessons, challenges and opportunities for the Forum. The key users of the evaluation are UN-Habitat


management and staff, the governing bodies, donors, partners, experts in urban development, policymakers and other key stakeholders.

Scope of evaluationThe evaluation analysis is based on the expected accomplishments identified in the logical framework for the ninth Forum, as well as the logical frameworks for subprogrammes and regional offices, and other tools for measuring medium-term impact. The central scope of the evaluation is the ninth Forum with a focus on planning, delivery of the Forum and assessment of impact and outcomes. It includes resources mobilized, activities implemented, outputs

produced, and the resulting outcomes and impact. In addition, the evaluation’s extended scope or larger perimeter includes the main related actions as far as they reach the same groups as the Forum. They include: (i) UN-Habitat policies, programmes, Governing Council resolutions and the New Urban Agenda (NUA), and the Sustainable Development Goals; (ii) related actions by the UN-Habitat’s branches and regional offices; and (iii) related actions of countries and relevant regional and international organizations. The central scope is clarified in the results chain shown in figure 1. The results chain is expanded in annex 6.

Figure 1 World Urban Forum 9 – results chain


Management and conduct of evaluation The Evaluation Unit of UN-Habitat managed and provided support to the evaluation process. The WUF secretariat was responsible for providing information and documentation as well as for coordination with relevant WUF stakeholders for the provision of information. The secretariat was to promote the evaluation during the Forum, informing participants and other target groups of its purpose and to encourage them to complete surveys and participate in interviews. The evaluation was carried out as a corporate assessment conducted by the external consultant, Ilde Lambrechts. It was guided by an evaluation reference group. This is in line with the UN-Habitat Evaluation Policy.6

6 Paragraph 44: “Centralized evaluations: All evaluations that are prioritized by UN-Habitat due to their strategic, thematic or demonstration importance will be conducted as corporate centralized evaluations by external consultants or the Evaluation Unit” […] They will be managed by the Evaluation Unit in consultation with the relevant programme unit”.

Report structure

This report has three parts. Part one gives an overview of the ninth Forum. It explains the evaluation methodology and how cross-cutting issues are incorporated in the evaluation. Part two gives an overview and analysis of the events delivery of the Forum. Part three contains a synthesis of the findings, the key conclusions, lessons learnt and a list of recommendations.


PART ONE

2. WUF9 overview

Table 1 WUF9 fact sheet

Project themes Sustainable urbanization and developmentImplementation of the New Urban Agenda

Period of execution of WUF9 7–13 February 2018

Financial information WUF9a Estimate updated in United States dollars

Malaysia in cashMalaysia in kindTotal:

4 million2 million6 million

Implementing agency UN-Habitat is convener of WUF

Lead branch/region Advocacy, Outreach and Communication/External Relations Division

Lead unit/body WUF Secretariat at UN-Habitat’s Headquarters

Collaborating branches/officers/units All divisions, branches and out-posted offices

External partners (United Nations) All United Nations agencies

External partners (others) Host country and host city of WUF9: The Government of Malaysia and the city of Kuala Lumpur and other Habitat partners.

Target population who benefits directly

New Urban Agenda Partnersb

Resolutions GC18/5 of 2001: Merger two forums into WUF GA resolution A/RES/56/206 -2001: WUF affirmation GC resolution 22/10 2009: WUF divers GC resolution 23/5 2011: WUF divers GA resolution 71/256 2016: New Urban Agenda GC resolution 26/6 2017: WUF divers Others

Linkage with the UN-Habitat Strategic Plan 2014–2019

All seven focus areas:1. Urban legislation, land and governance 2. Urban planning and design 3. Urban economy 4. Urban basic services 5. Housing and slum upgrading 6. Risk reduction and rehabilitation 7. Research and capacity development

Link to work programme EAs All subprogrammes

Linkage to SDGs SDG 11, as well as the urban dimension of all SDGs

Other Linkages Host Country and Conference Agreement

The World Urban Forum

The objectives and working arrangements for the Forum are summarized in the report of the First Session of the Forum, held in Nairobi from 29 April to 3 May 2002 (see annex IV). These arrangements are attached to this report in annex 2.

The designated expected results included (i) the advancement of collective knowledge and the identification of new issues; (ii) exchange of best practices, and cooperation and coordination among development agencies. An overview of WUF9 is shown in table 1.


The ninth session of the Forum in 2018 was the first large-scale event on urban development after the adoption of the New Urban Agenda at Habitat III in October 2016. The Ninth Session was also the first one to focus on its implementation. WUF9 is part of the six-year WUF Programme, running from 2018 to 2023. This Programme is a key catalytic vehicle to contribute to the implementation, monitoring and review of the

7 United Nations Human Settlements Programme (2017). WUF Project Document 2018-2023, Nairobi.

New Urban Agenda and the urban dimensions of the Sustainable Development Goals. Key components of the Programme are partnerships and networking, resource mobilization, and an innovative capacity-building dimension. An online interactive platform acts as a mechanism for mobilization, engagement, data and information gathering that are instrumental to the achievement of the overall objectives.7

The World Urban Forum 9

With the Petronas Twin Towers in the background Photo © Jeremias Thomas for UN-Habitat


Since its inaugural session in Nairobi, seven WUF sessions have been held in different locations: WUF2 in Barcelona (Spain) in 2004, WUF3 in Vancouver (Canada) in 2006, WUF4 in Nanjing (China) in 2008, WUF5 in Rio de Janeiro (Brazil) in 2010, WUF6 in Naples (Italy) in 2012, and WUF7 in Medellin (Colombia) in 2014. WUF8 did not take place because it coincided with Habitat III in October 2016. WUF10 is to take place in Abu

Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, in 2020. The official announcement for WUF 10 was made in March 2017 after the conclusion of the bidding process, which took place in 2016. WUF10 will be the first Forum to be held in an Arab country and will be another opportunity to review the implementation of the New Urban Agenda. An overview of the different Forums and the number of their participants is shown in table 2.

integrated and collaborative way

Table 2 Overview of the different Forums

Forum Location Month, Year Nb. of Participants (thousands)

WUF1 Nairobi, Kenya April 2002 1 195

WUF2 Barcelona, Spain September 2004 4 389

WUF3 Vancouver, Canada June 2006 10 471

WUF4 Nanjing, China November 2008 8 000

WUF5 Rio de Janeiro, Brazil March 2010 10 634

WUF6 Naples, Italy September 2012 6 516

WUF7 Medellin, Colombia April 2014 18 000

WUF8 - - -

WUF9 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia February 2018 19 237

WUF10 (planned) Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates

2020

Note: The wnumbers exclude the workforce such as local organizing staff, security, hospitality, services and volunteers.

Challenges

WUF9, while addressing the overall issues related to sustainable urbanization with its challenges and opportunities, seeks to contribute to bridging the following gaps:8

• Lack of legitimated, fully inclusive global platforms within the United Nations system for exchange of experience and knowledge on sustainable urbanization

• Poor sectorial integration, coordination and cooperation among different constituencies dealing with sustainable urban development related subjects, which may hamper an effective implementation of the New Urban

8 United Nations Human Settlements Programme (2017). WUF Project Document 2018–2023, page 9. Nairobi,

Agenda as well as the achievement of the SDGs related to sustainable urbanization

• Insufficient advocacy and awareness on sustainable urbanization, which if improved could be the key to include the item in the global political and media agenda

• Need to create a strong platform that will substantively feed in the follow-up and review process of the New Urban Agenda

• Need to raise the profile of UN-Habitat as a focal point for the United Nations system in implementing the New Urban Agenda in an


WUF theme

Each forum has a generic and broad-based theme as it serves as an advocacy tool to motivate and mobilize a broad range of stakeholders and countries to participate in the Forum. The theme of the ninth Forum was Cities 2030, Cities for All: Implementing the New Urban Agenda. It also focused the Forum on the New Urban Agenda as a tool and accelerator for achieving the 2030 Agenda and its SDGs. The Forum substantively fed into the inputs for and became instrumental to the reporting on the implementation of the New Urban Agenda.

The ninth Forum also contributed to global mobilization and advocacy for the common vision

on sustainable urban development and advance on the achievement of the 2030 Agenda and the SDGs.

WUF9 Results

The development objectives9 of the Forum are to (i) advance the coordinated implementation of the New Urban Agenda and (ii) raise UN-Habitat’s profile as a leading agency in the field of urbanization. It also means to consolidate its knowledge base with the conference outcomes incorporated in the strategies and UN-Habitat’s work from the normative to the

operational level. The expected accomplishments (EAs) or outcomes as indicated in the logframe of the Forum are the following:

EA1. Awareness is raised on sustainable urban development among stakeholders and constituencies, including the public.

EA2. Collective knowledge on sustainable urban development is improved through inclusive open debates, sharing of lessons learned, and the exchange of urban solutions, good practices and policies.

9 United Nations Human Settlements Programme (2017). WUF Project Document 2018–2023, Purpose of the WUF9, Nairobi. The WUF should not confuse its overall objective (or longer-term results) with its expected accomplishments (direct results from the events).

EA3. Coordination and cooperation are increased within the United Nations system and with different stakeholders and constituencies for an effective implementation of the New Urban Agenda and the urban dimension of the SDGs.

EA4. Substantive and strategic inputs from multilateral organizations, national and subnational governments and stakeholders are provided into the reporting of the implementation of the New Urban Agenda (in line with Op. 167 of the New Urban Agenda).

EA5. UN-Habitat’s profile is raised, and strategic programming supported with specific focus on implementing and subsequently feed the six-year strategic plan and biennial work programme and

budget.

The theme and expected accomplishments of the Forum are explained in the WUF9 concept note. According to the working arrangements summarized in the report of the First Session of the Forum, this note should be agreed on six months prior to the Forum to align stakeholders and events with a common vision of the actual Forum.

The concept note, published on the WUF9 website, was agreed upon with the Committee of Permanent Representatives. The Forum’s stakeholders’ and beneficiaries’ implementation

strategy, risks and assumptions are indicated in the WUF9 Project Document that is approved by UN-Habitat’s Project Advisory Group.

Target population and beneficiaries

The target populations who benefit directly from the Forum are the New Urban Agenda Partners and decision makers, such as national and subnational government representatives and parliamentarians. Beneficiaries include intergovernmental organizations, academia, civil society and grass-roots organizations, women and youth, professionals, the private sector, foundations and the general public.


Implementation strategy

The proposed strategy10 is outlined in the project document as follows: (i) strengthening the sustainability of the project, ensuring that the brand value is kept high and that sufficient funds are secured through the contributions of host cities and governments; (ii) running a six-year cycle coherent with the UN-Habitat Strategic Plan cycle;11 and (iii) high-level participation, engagement and promotion, together with innovative formats and effective mechanisms put in place to ensure an improved implementation and follow up of the New Urban Agenda and the strategy and work of UN-Habitat using a results-based management approach. Changes in the WUF implementation strategy since the ninth

Forum include: (i) Each forum would now be part of a six-year WUF Programme (2018–2023) to improve its financial sustainability and expand capacity to measure impact; and (ii) increase the involvement of the branches and of the regional offices to improve the corporate approach and to support the WUF strategy. This includes the drawing up of disaggregated logframes.

Risks and key assumptions

The critical assumptions summarized in the project document are the following:

• Political will from the host country to mobilize the region to support the sustainable urban development agenda

• Political will of participating partners, especially national and local governments, to support the sustainable urban development agenda

• Adequate logistical and financial support from the host city is provided

• High-level participants from all stakeholders’ groups and categories (political and technical) are willing to participate and engage actively

10 United Nations Human Settlements Programme (2017). WUF Project Document 2018–2023, page 15. Nairobi.11 To be verified (Strategic Plan 2020–2025) (WUF programme cycle 2018–2023).

The risks indicated and analysed in the Project Document are the following:

• Lack of commitment from partners to deliver their event or withdrawing their participation

• Lack of commitment to share information and effectively deliver the sessions’ reports

• Lack of political will from the city or poor alignment with the national level

• Risk that the host government or city will not comply with financial commitment

• Cost of travel, accommodation and local transport affecting the participation of some countries or regions

• Security is not a concern in Malaysia and Kuala Lumpur; natural disasters are unlikely in the area. Pollution in the city can at times be significant though it is unlikely that this will affect the event

• Low number of heads of state, ministers, mayors, and other international stakeholders including those from the United Nations system participating

Roles and contributions of various stakeholders including financial contributions

The roles and contributions of main stakeholders are specified in the Host Country and Conference Agreement of 10 March 2017 between the UN-Habitat Executive Director and the Minister of Urban Well-being, Housing and Local Government of Malaysia. The agreement applies to the organization and holding of the Forum whereby the Government of Malaysia shall work in partnership with UN-Habitat. It details the obligations of the Government with regard to the venue, logistics and organization of the Forum.


The United Nations will (i) inform participants to register online at least four weeks prior to the Forum, (ii) give guidelines on branding, on the exhibition, and on the meeting and press briefing rooms. All public material would be cleared by UN-Habitat and the United Nations would maintain the website of the Forum.

The agreement, in addition to other financial obligations, settles the financial contribution of the Government of Malaysia. Malaysia contributed 6 million United States dollars (USD) to the Forum. Of this amount, USD 4 million was disbursed to UN-Habitat prior to the Forum. The remaining USD 2 million was not transferred but served to implement activities to support the

organization of the Forum in Malaysia. The USD 4 million contribution to UN-Habitat was used for shipment of equipment and material; staff time and consultants for the preparation of the Forum; preparatory missions; promotional and outreach material; support to selected panellists and moderators; support to participants from least developed and low-income countries; support to UN-Habitat staff and United Nations Security and Conference Services Staff; and for monitoring, reporting and evaluation. After WUF9, UN-Habitat would present a detailed set of accounts to the Government of Malaysia, as required by the Host Country and Conference Agreement.12 At the time of the evaluation, this information is awaited. The

Income and Expenditure of the ninth Forum as of February 2019 is detailed in annex 4.

Reference to relevant documents and mandates

New Urban Agenda

The New Urban Agenda was adopted at the United Nations Conference on Housing and Sustainable Urban Development (Habitat III) in Quito, Ecuador, on 20 October 2016. It was endorsed by the United Nations General

Assembly at its sixty-eighth plenary meeting of the seventy-first session on 23 December 2016.

12 Host Country and Conference Agreement, Article IV.3

The New Urban Agenda represents a shared vision for a better and more sustainable future. If well planned and well managed, urbanization can be a powerful tool for sustainable development for developing and developed countries. The Agenda assigns a role for WUF into reporting on the progress of the Agenda’s implementation as the General Assembly resolution 71/256 “requests the Secretary-General, with voluntary inputs from countries and relevant regional and international organizations, to report on the progress of the implementation of the New Urban Agenda … The report should incorporate, to the extent possible, the inputs of multilateral organizations and processes where appropriate, civil society, the private sector, and academia. It should build

on existing platforms and processes such as the World Urban Forum convened by UN-Habitat.”

Agenda 2030 and SDGs

In 2015, countries adopted the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and its 17 Sustainable Development Goals. Over the next 15 years, countries were to mobilize efforts to end all forms of poverty, fight inequalities and tackle climate change,

while ensuring that no one is left behind. WUF9

promotes the implementation of the urban dimensions of the Goals, and Goal 11 in particular, by “making cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable”.

Results frameworks of the regional offices

The ninth Forum is the first where the UN-Habitat regional offices and the branches prepared dedicated logframes. The logframes are tied to their respective expected accomplishments and subprogrammes to those of the Forum.

TRANSFORMING OUR WORLD:

THE 2030 AGENDA FOR

SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

UNITED NATIONS

www.habitat3.org#NewUrbanAgenda #Habitat3

NEW

URBAN

AGENDA


3. Methodology of evaluationThe UN-Habitat Governing Council, through its resolution 26/6, requested the Executive Director “to improve and define a timely planning process for the Forum, for UN-Habitat itself and for all external stakeholders involved, based on a results-based framework, identifying clearly focused objectives and measurable indicators of success, designing conducive event formats and strengthening reporting mechanisms to enable the effective collection of the substantive outcomes of sessions of the Forum”. The WUF9 logframe is based on that of WUF7, which was the first forum to use a logical framework as a results-based management tool. In line with the above resolution, the Evaluation Unit prescribed

a results-based approach for this evaluation (Programme Theory Evaluation), using the UN-Habitat’s logframe and the WUF-related subprogrammes and regional offices’ logframes, as well as other evaluation tools with which to measure outcomes and impact properly. Recurrent themes in the previous evaluations’ recommendations are (i) the need to establish the impact from the forums, (ii) more targeted audiences at the events, (iii) more clearly defined expected results, and (iv) better defined roles and responsibilities of the stakeholders in the process.

Approach and methodology

Design of the evaluationThe first evaluations especially assessed efficient delivery and growth of the forum. This was justified as WUF had to grow from a small-scale gathering into a significant event. But now that the Forum has grown into the world’s premier international gathering on urban issues,13 it is time to shift focus on evaluation.

WUF is now more than an event. With the formulation of the WUF Programme, it is perceived as a change process that purposefully uses partnerships, resources and capacity development to strengthen the coordination of international support and the ability of all stakeholders on matters relating to the urban development and to raise UN-Habitat’s profile

13 Governing Council, resolution 26/6 World Urban Forum.14 United Nations Human Settlements Programme (2017). WUF9 Project Document 2018–2023. Nairobi.15 World Bank Institute (2012). Guide to Evaluating Capacity Development Results, page 9.

and knowledge base.14This WUF9 evaluation aims to assess longer-term results using a results-based approach by tracking the results chain and applying tailored indicators. To achieve this, the evaluation shifts the focus from growth to transformational change. Moreover, the New Urban Agenda proclaims “transformative commitment for sustainable urban development” as indicated in the WUF9 concept note.

Outcomes that are most likely to be sustained beyond the delivery of WUF are those that reflect changes in the working of institutions and local urban service delivery towards reaching sustainable development. These results go beyond improvements in the behaviour or

disposition of specific individuals or groups that attended the Forum and are, therefore, considered institutional in nature. The evaluation links change to a broad-based concept of capacity development that incorporates all of WUF9’s expected accomplishments, including coordination and cooperation between stakeholders. Change is measured at two different levels: the individual and the institutional. The New Urban Agenda also indicates the importance of capacity development for its implementation.

Theory of change approach to evaluationAs per the terms of reference, the evaluation

applies the theory of change approach with the WUF9 logical framework (logframe) as its main tool. The logframe helps to understand the WUF logic. It is a critical first step for discovering or telling the results story.

Especially assessing change or capacity development at outcome level and the emerging impact in development in general is challenging15 because (i) a conceptual framework for results-focused capacity development is often missing, and (ii) capacity development might be poorly articulated in the logframe. This is the case for the WUF9 logframe that is incomplete, and half of its indicators are still on growth that only give a limited indication of longer-term results or “change” effected by WUF. To make these challenges explicit and, therefore, better


traceable, the evaluation tracks the targeted capacity change process(es). This is not exclusive. Articulating the capacity development results chain in the logframe does not exclude the assessment of other development outcomes.

But all WUF9 current expected accomplishments are capacity outcomes in the broad sense as explained above. The evaluation used semi-standardized checklists to assess the capacity development results chain.

The evaluation used a framework to measure change and capacity development in the Forum at two levels and, therefore, reconstructed the logframe by application of the following:

1. Adding or completing intermediate capacity outcomes (ICOs) to strengthen the capacities of WUF participants and create synergies between the participants. The intermediate capacity outcomes are aligned to the WUF9 expected accomplishments.

2. Showing the institutional capacity areas that need strengthening to reach sustainable urban development.

These applications are in table 3.

Table 3 Standard types of intermediate capac-ity outcomes and institutional capacity areas applied in the evaluation16

Intermediate capacity outcomes – Expected accomplishments

ICO1: Raised awareness (understanding, attitude, confidence, or motivation)

ICO2: Enhanced knowledge or skills (acquisition or application of new knowledge and skills)

16 World Bank Institute (2009). The Capacity Development Results Framework: A Strategic and Results-Oriented Approach to Learning for Capacity Development.

17 Earle, Lucy (2002a). Lost in the Matrix: The Logframe and the Local Picture. Paper for INTRAC’s 5th Evaluation Conference.

Earle, Lucy (2002b), OIOS (2014), Inspection and Evaluation Manual. Capra, Fritjof (2014), The Systems View of Life. Cambridge University Press

United Nations Human Settlements Programme (2017). Results-Based Management Handbook: Applying RBM Concepts and Tools for a Better Urban Future. World Bank, Caroline Heider, Director General and Senior Vice President, Evaluation, World Bank Group (2017), Rethinking the Evaluation.

ICO3: Improved consensus and teamwork (collaboration within a group of people tied by a common task)

ICO4: Strengthened coalitions (collaboration between individuals or groups with diverse objectives to advance a common agenda)

ICO5: Enhanced networks (collaboration between individuals or groups with a common interest but not a formal common agenda for action)

ICO6: New implementation know-how (strengthened disposition or ability to act, arising from formulation or implementation of policies, strategies, or plans)

Institutional Capacity Areas – Project Objectives

Strength of stakeholder ownership (level of priority attached to the development objectives: commitment of social and political leaders; stakeholder participation in setting priorities; transparency of information, etc)

Efficiency of policy instruments (policy instruments guiding pursuit of the development objective: clarity in defining rights and responsibilities; consistency; legitimacy; incentives for compliance; ease of administration; risk for negative externalities; suitable flexibility, etc)

Effectiveness of organizational arrangements (performance in achievement of the development objective: clarity of mission, operational efficiency, achievement of outcomes, communications and stakeholder relations, etc)

Systems approach to evaluationThe logframe assumes that everything goes according to plan and does not capture change in WUF along the way or unforeseen outcomes. Therefore, the evaluation complements the Theory of Change approach with the systems approach17 that helps with identifying issues and


explains linkages that the theory of change does not do well. Systems thinking is an essential part of schooling for sustainability. It helps to understand the complexity of the world by thinking in terms of relationships, connectedness, and context. The evaluation tracks the capacity development cycle18 shown in figure 2, while incorporating the principles of the systems approach.

Figure 2 Capacity development cycle

Participatory approach to evaluation

As per the terms of reference, the evaluation of the Forum followed a participatory approach, being transparent, consulting with partners and

stakeholders, sharing preliminary findings, and incorporating feedback to (i) generate a positive attitude towards the evaluation in general; (ii) create a sense of stakeholder ownership of the outcomes; and (iii) empower stakeholders through the evaluation process and use of the evaluation findings.

Cross-cutting issues

The evaluation assessed the mainstreaming of the cross-cutting issues of gender, youth, climate change and human rights at the Forum in accordance with the project document’s gender and human rights strategies, and environmental analysis that includes a carbon dioxide compensation programme.

18 United Nations Human Settlements Programme (2012). Training for Better Cities.

Evaluation questions

The following questions allowed the evaluation to focus on key points, thus targeting data collection for in-depth analysis:

RelevanceTo what extent do WUF9 objectives correspond to the needs of the New Urban Agenda Partners and are consistent with UN-Habitat’s mandate?

To what extent are the interventions and outputs of WUF consistent with the attainment of its objectives?

EffectivenessTo what extent has WUF9 coordinated efforts progressed into the implementation of and reporting on the New Urban Agenda and Agenda 2030?

To what extent has WUF9 raised UN-Habitat’s profile and consolidated its knowledge base?

What are the most innovative and effective approaches or formats used?

EfficiencyTo what extent have the objectives of WUF9 been achieved with the lowest possible use of resources and inputs in terms of expertise, time and cost?

How efficient was WUF9 planned, implemented and monitored?

SustainabilityTo what extent have the benefits of WUF9 been maintained after the delivery of the Forum?

ImpactTo what extent has WUF9 produced positive or negative changes, intended or unintended, in advancing sustainable urban development with the New Urban Agenda partners including UN-Habitat?

Cross-cutting issuesTo what extent were cross-cutting issues integrated into the design, planning, implementation, reporting, and monitoring of WUF9?


Data collection and analysis

The theory of change approach used analytic data collection techniques mostly based on quantitative methods of counting. The systems approach to the evaluation used holistic or synthetic data collection techniques to measure outcomes and understand how project components and external influences have worked together to produce results. They include quality assessment, images, storytelling, media content, interviews, a literature review, stakeholder perception, and direct observation.

Literature review

Literature review was used to provide partial answers to some of the evaluation questions

asked and to assess the quality of policy, strategy, programme and project documents. The key documents reviewed include: the project

document, logical framework, concept paper, and the WUF declaration; the Host Country and Conference Agreement; the substantial WUF9 report to be submitted to the Committee of Permanent Representatives; and the United Nations General Assembly and UN-Habitat Governing Council resolutions.

Checklists

As mentioned above, the evaluation used semi-standardized checklists to assess the capacity development cycle; to identify which intermediate change objectives an intervention of the WUF9 were designed to produce or should have been targeted; and which change objectives were or should have been strengthened by the capacity outcomes.

Semi-structured interviews

The evaluation conducted semi-structured interviews with key stakeholders. These interviews were based on the evaluation questions in order to complete missing information, check validity and quality, and to cross-validate findings. The key stakeholders in the evaluation include all WUF9 participants, the New Urban Agenda Partners and all who hold an interest in relation to the development objectives. In all, 52 stakeholders were interviewed. They are listed in annex 3.

Surveys

The following surveys supported the evaluation:

1. The On-Site Participant Survey conducted during the Forum itself and to which 650 participants responded.

2. The WUF9 Participant Impact Survey that was conducted seven months after the event to assess the extent to which the participants had applied, in their work, what they had learnt from WUF9. The survey was open on 17 September and closed on 7 October 2018. There were 3,524 responses.

3. The UN-Habitat Staff Survey that was conducted immediately after the event

and was filled by 139 UN-Habitat staff and consultants.

Analysis of media content

Media content gave a holistic perspective and a critical assessment of the events.

Direct observation and missions

Direct observation during missions undertaken in the context of this evaluation was used to assess outcomes and to understand how the project components have worked together to produce intermediate capacity outcomes, and

to strengthen the institutional capacity areas. To evaluate the global scale of WUF9 and assess the local context in a global event, the method of sampling was used by holding semi-structured interviews and field visits in three countries at different development levels: Malaysia (an emerging market and developing economy close to high-income status), Kenya (an emerging market and developing economy), and Belgium (an advanced economy).

Limitations to the evaluation

1. Too extensive a scope: In view of the available time and budget for the evaluation, there was too much data to collect, too many informants to meet and analyses to perform, and they were dispersed.


2. Complex scope of the events: The current WUF logframe is incomplete and the cause-and-effect mechanisms of WUF9 were unclear.

3. Far-reaching impact: There are many external factors and they were influential, to the extent that it was too difficult to analyse the actual

contribution of WUF9. Change with the New Urban Agenda partners depends on cultural and other contextual factors including political or economic circumstances; it was too difficult to attribute a positive or negative change in the countries to a particular intervention of WUF9.


PART TWO

4. Overview and analysis of WUF9 events

This chapter gives an overview of the different sessions at the Forum, of its opening and closing ceremonies, and of the exhibitions. It also summarizes the appreciation of its participants and it analyses the outcome and impact prospects of the various events. A detailed description of the events including their attendance, a summary of the discussions, key recommendations and commitments made is represented in UN-Habitat’s Ninth Session of the World Urban Forum Report. This report will be issued at the First UN-Habitat Assembly, 27–31 May 2019.

Table 4 and 5 give an overview of WUF9 main sessions and ranking of events. The primary thematic events include 6 high-level roundtables, 1 ministerial roundtable, 8 dialogues, and 21 special sessions. These events were organized by UN-Habitat’s thematic branches. UN-Habitat focal points also coordinated the assemblies, stakeholder roundtables, the AFINUA and Listen to Cities rooms.

Table 4 Overview of WUF9 main sessions and their subjects

High-level Round Tables

Ministers Roundtable

1 Cities for All and housing at the centre

2 The urban dimension in climate change action

3 An integrated territorial approach to sustainable development

4 Innovative governance for open and inclusive cities

5 Urbanization and development: investing in the transformative force of cities

6 Sustainable urban development for peace and security

Dialogues

1 National urban policies

2 Governance and legislative frameworks

3 Urban economies, productive cities and municipal finance

4 Urban planning and design for local implementation

5 Making resilient cities

6 Prevent conflicts and sustain peace: urban migration and crisis

7 Open and big data: measuring the urban reality

8 Transformative partnerships in urban management

Special Sessions

1 Leveraging diversity and culture, shaping the cities for all

2 Housing at the centre, as a vector for socioeconomic inclusion

3 Urban-rural linkages: territorial development and food security

4 Security of tenure, land market and segregation

5 Local economic development, productivity and youth employment in cities

6 Access to basic services for all

7 Urban ecological landscapes: achieving urban health addressing climate change

8 Urban labs for urban extension and urban renewal


9 Urban safety and accessibility: shared public and people spaces

10 Informal settlements and slum upgrading

11 Affordable housing for all (diverse income and multi-generational cities)

12 Urban mobility and safe and accessible transport for all

13 Low carbon and energy-efficient cities

14 Risk reduction (resilient building)

15 Restoring hope: building back cities and communities together after disaster

16 Unlocking positive impacts of migration in cities

17 Smart cities and the growing role of technological innovation

18 Creative investment and financing mechanism for local government

19 Inclusive multi-stakeholders’ platforms

20 Urban data

21 Civic engagement and participation

Assemblies

1 Women

2 Children

3 Youth

4 Local and regional governments

5 Grassroots

6 Business

Stakeholders Roundtables

1 Mayors

2 Women

3 Children and Youth

4 Business and Industries

5 Civil Society Organizations

6 Farmers

7 Foundations and Philanthropies

8 Grassroots Organizations

9 Indigenous People

10 Older Persons

11 Parliamentarians

12 Persons with Disabilities

13 Professionals

14 Trade Unions and Workers

15 Research and Academia


Table 5 Overview of all WUF9 events and their appreciation ranked according to the on-site participant survey (1: most liked; 11: least liked)

Ranking Event Number of events

1 Training Events 60

2 Networking Events 143

3 Special Sessions 21

4 Exhibition Booths 79

Dialogues 8

5 Side Events 165

6 Women and Children Assembly

7 High-level Roundtables 7

8 Opening and Closing CeremoniesStakeholder RoundtablesAFINUA Room

21523

9 Technical Visits 9

10 Assemblies 5

One UN Room 33

Urban Talks 3

Urban Library 33

11 Listen to Cities Room/Local Action 29

City Events & WUF9 Village 9

Not rated Parallel Events 23

UN-Habitat in Action Room 11

Press Conferences 17

Caucus Meetings 6

Opening and closing ceremonies

The opening ceremony began with cultural events that included Malaysian dances of various ethnic traditions. A video announced the WUF9 highlights and speeches that were held. The event closed with a song on leadership performed by the students of Limkokwing University of Malaysia. The closing ceremony also included cultural events; it featured video messages and speeches including those by Malaysian official

representatives and the United Nations officials among whom were UN-Habitat’s Executive Director. During the closing ceremony, the WUF9 Advisory Group presented the Kuala Lumpur Declaration on Cities 2030. Finally, the Forum was handed over to the United Arab Emirates, which will host WUF10 from 7 to 13 February 2020 in the city of Abu Dhabi.


WUF 9 opening ceremony Photo © Jeremias Thomas for UN-Habitat

The opening and closing ceremonies were well received. The UN-Habitat staff valued that they were not only invited to join the opening ceremony, but were even given reserved seats. This was seen as a way of appreciation of the

new Executive Director, towards UN-Habitat staff. Some participants felt that the opening ceremony could have benefitted from an introduction of WUF9’s content.

Analysis

Main change objectives: Individual intermediate change outcomes: none set

Institutional change objectives: none set

Change agents / Target audience: All

Change method / Delivery: Expert speakers and video messages, cultural events

Follow-up / monitoring: Kuala Lumpur (KL) Declaration is followed by all stakeholders No monitoring framework set to the KL Declaration


High-level roundtables

Six high-level roundtables were the highest-level activities of the Forum, featuring key decision makers and the iconic figures. They shared experiences and took stock of ongoing programmes and initiatives across regions and countries to implement the New Urban Agenda and to support the achievements of the Sustainable Development Goals. This high-level representation featured 187 ministers, vice ministers, mayors and one head of state, compared with 202 during WUF7.19 A moderator opened each roundtable and introduced the topic and speakers. After the speakers’ intervention, panel discussions followed.

The roundtables broadly recognized that WUF9 came at the right moment to build on the momentum of the New Urban Agenda. In particular, the discussions on “Metropolitan Governance in Latin America” and “Urbanization in Africa” were much appreciated, as was expressed in the participant impact survey.

1. Not all the highest-level sessions, including high-level roundtables and dialogues, were well attended. The timing of some sessions, sometimes early in the morning, could have been a factor. Moreover, they competed with side and networking events taking place

at the same time. Some renowned experts found themselves speaking to rather empty halls.

19 United Nations Human Settlements Programme. WUF9 Draft Report shared on 10 December 2018.

2. Another drawback consisted in forms of the moderation, format and content of the high-level roundtables. They were criticized as being too protocolic, lacking creativity or inspiration, and sometimes even boring. Some panellists were criticized because, rather than responding to the guiding questions, they merely used the Forum to display their own successes, which were not necessarily related to this Forum’s theme. The late invitation of the speakers and panellists to the Forum might have been a factor, as they did not have time to prepare. This also led to some of the preferred candidates being

no longer available to speak.

3. UN-Habitat staff also felt that the role of the focal points of the high-level roundtables and at other main sessions had been downscaled in their preparation, whereby the WUF Secretariat took leadership of the content of the session.

4. The selectivity and prominence of the high-level sessions was not always appreciated. Suggestions were made to enhance local-level participation in these events on the one hand or participation of high-level participants in the other sessions. High-level speakers

should also be available for less formal meetings with participants.

Analysis

Main change objectives: Individual intermediate change outcomes: ICO2. Enhanced knowledge and skills. ICO6. Increased implementation know-how by improved formulation or implementation of polices, strategies, or plans through discovery and innovation.

Institutional change objectives: efficiency of policy instruments.

Change agents / Target audience: Decision makers and the most iconic figures.


Dialogues

Change method / Delivery: Speakers’ interventions, panel discussions, tweets. Life broadcasting on UN Web TV. Session reports delivered.

Follow-up / Monitoring: Follow-up activities suggested in event reports. No monitoring framework set.

The eight dialogues were high-level sessions, with in-depth discussions on specific issues regarding the implementation of the New Urban Agenda and mechanisms for monitoring its implementation. The dialogues aimed at formulating policy recommendations for the

delivery of the Agenda as identified in the Action Framework of the Implementation of the New Urban Agenda (AFINUA) drafted by UN-Habitat. The dialogues also deliberated on the way cities were being rethought and re-imagined.

Overall the dialogues were found to be informative and of high quality.

Participants argued to redirect the format of the dialogues more towards direct dialogue and exchange, rather than use the current

format of panel discussions. They suggested direct discussions between officials and other stakeholders including academia and community-based organizations.

Participants felt that the youth and the elderly merited more dedicated attention.

Analysis

Main change objectives: Individual intermediate change outcomes: ICO1. Raise awareness on specific issues; AFINUA ICO2. Enhance knowledge and skills. ICO6. Increase implementation know-how.

Change agents / Target audience: Institutional change objectives: efficiency of policy instrumentsNot specified in concept notes.

Change method / Delivery: Three-hour long events. Speakers’ interventions and panel discussions. Life broadcasting on UN Web TV. Session reports delivered.

Follow-up / monitoring: Follow-up activities suggested in event reports. No monitoring framework set.

Assemblies

Five assemblies gave voice to stakeholder groups from broader segments of society. The assemblies aimed at mobilizing a large audience at the Forum and discussed topics relevant to the constituencies in advancing the implementation of the Agenda. The recommendations of

the assemblies informed other events of the Forum. The following were held: (i) Women’s Assembly, (ii) Business Assembly, (iii) Youth and Children Assemblies, (v) Grassroots Assembly, and (vi) World Assembly of Local and Regional Governments.


Business assembly and world assembly of local and regional governments photo © UN-Habitat

The Women’s and the Youth and Children assemblies were especially appreciated. Participants found that the Women’s Assembly raised their awareness and identified solutions to specific gender-related issues. The diversity of the presenters, the formats, the opportunities for

exchange and engagement were success factors. These assemblies were inclusive events. The Business Assembly failed to mobilize important private sector representation, notwithstanding their importance in implementing the Agenda.

Analysis

Main change objectives: ICO1. Raised awareness. ICO2. Enhanced knowledge and skills on innovation, tools. ICO4. Strengthened coalitions through the creation of platforms. ICO5. Enhanced networks. ICO6. New implementation know-how. Other: Assessment of the outcomes & impact of Habitat III events.

Strength of stakeholder ownership: Enhanced priority is attached by stakeholders to the specific objective(s) of the constituencies such as to women affairs. Efficiency of policy instruments: Specific objective of the constituencies into strengthened policy instruments.

Change agents / Target audience: Six stakeholder groups; broad audience.

Change method / Delivery: Various formats including plenary, training sessions, thematic working groups.



Special sessions

Twenty-one special sessions aimed at in-depth discussions on specific issues with regard to the implementation of the New Urban Agenda and mechanisms to monitor its implementation. The sessions generated debate on subjects such as strategic delivery of the Agenda through security of tenure; rethinking and re-imagining cities through unlocking positive impacts of migration in cities; inclusive multi-stakeholders’ partnerships; and urban data.

Participants appreciated the in-depth discussions on specific issues and the practical information provided. The session by a mayor from Argentina showing the transformation in his city, the session on smart cities, and that on urban labs for city extension and urban renewal were most appreciated, according to the participant WUF9 impact survey.

Analysis

Main change objectives: Individual intermediate change outcomes: ICO2. Enhanced knowledge or skills: on specific issues such as age sensitive multi-stakeholder policies, cities for all and transformation of peoples’ lives. ICO3. Improved consensus and teamwork. ICO4. Strengthened coalitions: through reviewing stakeholder collaborative frameworks.

Institutional change objectives: -Efficiency of policy instruments: through clarity in defining rights and responsibilities. -Effectiveness of organizational arrangements: through peoples’ engagement in monitoring and reporting on implementation of the New Urban Agenda, reviewing monitoring mechanisms.

Change agents / Target audience:

Not defined.

Change method / Delivery: Speakers’ interventions and panel discussions. Session reports delivered.


Stakeholder roundtables

During 15 stakeholder roundtables, constituent groups presented their projects and research relevant to the implementation of the New Urban Agenda. The roundtables discussed the priorities and concerns from the specific stakeholder groups. They worked towards a common position and planned actions for effective contribution of constituencies to the Agenda’s implementation. Roundtables were held, for example, by persons with disabilities, with mayors, with older persons, and with researchers and academics.

Participants appreciated the way that the stakeholder roundtables offered space for the constituent groups to define their role in implementing the New Urban Agenda.

Participants found that these stakeholder roundtables would benefit from more cross-sectoral dialogue with partners. The roundtable on youth, for example, turned out to be rather disappointing. This is because most attendees were youth, and there were no discussions with other stakeholders such as decision makers or academics.


Analysis

Chain of cause and effect Chain of cause and effect not defined. No indicator set.

Change objectives: Individual intermediate change outcomes: ICO1. Raised awareness on the priorities of different constituent groups in cities and the challenge they face. ICO2. Enhanced knowledge or skills. ICO3. Improved consensus and teamwork: increased contribution by constituent groups in decision-making; higher sharing of a common set of values to lead to the best possible decision for the group; consensus decision-making process. ICO4. Strengthened coalitions: shared purpose and vision within constituent group. ICO5. Enhanced networks.

Institutional change objectives: none set.


Sixteen constituent groups.



UN-Habitat in Action Room

The 11 UN-Habitat in Action Room sessions showcased and discussed initiatives undertaken by UN-Habitat and its partners in concentrating on the implementation of the Agenda and the

Sustainable Development Goals. Various themes

were discussed such as: Learning Exchange on Safer Cities; Bankable Projects for Sustainable Development; How Resilient is Your City? City Resilience Profiling Tool, and others.

Analysis

Change objectives: Individual intermediate change outcomes: ICO6. Increased ability to act, through the acquisition or application of new knowledge and skills.


Institutional change objectives: none set.All




AFINUA Room

There were 23 AFINUA Room sessions focused on the integrative nature of the New Urban Agenda across its five key action areas. They considered regional, national and local priorities and specificities. AFINUA Room discussions centred on topics, projects and initiatives such as the following: Implementing the New Urban Agenda in Latin America and the Caribbean;

Cities Need Underground — Equity and Equality Opportunities for the New Urban Agenda; Sustainable and Resilient Cities — The World Cities Day Forum 2018, and others.

Participants suggested more structured programming and better information about the sessions of the One UN and the AFINUA rooms.

Analysis

Change objectives: Individual intermediate change outcomes: ICO2. Increased ability to act, through the acquisition or application of new knowledge and skills. ICO6. New implementation know-how.




Follow-up / monitoring: No event reports available. No monitoring framework set.

Listen to Cities Room/local action

Twenty-nine Listen to Cities Rooms served to increase the dialogue between national and subnational authorities on the Agenda’s implementation. The sessions were organized by

local and regional governments and associations, with the involvement of the World Assembly of Local and Regional Governments. Action-oriented solutions were presented and discussed. They included Unlocking the Potential of Local

Leadership for Sustainable Urban Development, Women Mayors: Empowered Women Challenging the Norms; and Urban Forced Displacement: The New Normal.

Participants found the Listen to Cities Room informative and practical. They appreciated the in-depth discussions on specific issues.

Analysis

Chain of cause and effect Chain of cause and effect not defined. No indicator.

Change objectives: Individual intermediate change outcomes: ICO3. Improved consensus and teamwork: strengthened disposition or ability to act through improved collaboration within government between national and subnational authorities to advance the implementation of the New Urban Agenda.



National and subnational authorities.

Change method / Delivery: No information available.

Follow-up / monitoring: No information available.


One UN Room

The 33 One UN Room sessions discussed United Nations system-wide collaboration towards the implementation of the Agenda and reaching the SDGs. The sessions showcased existing projects and partnerships in this respect. The also offered the opportunity to strengthen common engagement of the United Nations system into achieving sustainable urban development. They created a platform for exchange of ideas and experience in advancing and supporting local action and regional collaboration.

The events were co-organized by selected United Nations agencies. The One UN Room organized sessions like Cities and the SDGs: Leaving No One Behind (by UNDP); Circular Economy in Cities (by UNEP); Implementing Global and Regional Agendas for Sustainable Urbanization; The Role of United Nations Regional Commissions (by United Nations Regional Commissions).

The One UN Room enthused participants and the UN-Habitat staff into working together with United Nations agencies, funds and programmes into achieving results.

Analysis

Change objectives: Individual intermediate change outcomes: ICO2. Enhanced knowledge or skills: on local action and regional collaboration. ICO4. Strengthened coalitions: strengthened disposition or ability to act through improved collaboration between United Nations agencies with diverse objectives to advance the implementation of the New Urban Agenda.



United Nations agencies.



Networking events

The 143 networking events strengthened collaboration among various partners for implementing the New Urban Agenda and advancing the SDGs. They showcased the different partners’ efforts in this regard. The following sessions took place: Multilateral Development Banks’ Regional and Thematic Initiatives toward the New Urban Agenda (by the Asian Development Bank); Breaking Through the Noise: How to Effectively Communicate the Impact of Resilience (by 100 Resilient Cities – Pioneered by The Rockefeller Foundation); Landscapes-making in Asia and the Pacific (by Asian Habitat Society and others).

The networking events were popular. The event “Achieving Slower Cities: towards the New

Urban Agenda” (by the NGO Despacio) was mentioned in the participant impact survey as an eye-opening networking occasion. Their event approach was based on experience gained through previous Forums, and they also evaluated the results of their event. Other remarkable sessions included: Good Design, Good Planning: Aligning Practice, Communities and Education in the Implementation of Agenda 2030; and the session Forced Evictions and Public Space. Some participants commented that not all sessions were true networking events. They found the informal discussions more useful than the dedicated networking events.

Overall participants found that there were too many events that were not sufficiently diverse.


Analysis

Change objectives: Individual intermediate change outcomes: ICO5. Enhanced networks: Strengthened disposition or ability to act through improved collaboration between individuals or groups with a common interest but not a formal common agenda for action.


Change agents / Target audience: All partners.



Side events

Analysis

Change objectives: Individual intermediate change outcomes: ICO2. Enhanced knowledge or skills.

Change agents / Target audience: Institutional change objectives: none set.

All

Change method / Delivery: Books launching, project launching. Maximum one-hour event.


The 165 side events demonstrated tangible

initiatives into implementation of the Agenda in different countries. They shared knowledge regarding data collection, ongoing research, new publications, and projects. They also gathered support for specific initiatives. Examples of these events were Addressing Urban Resilience through Nature-based Solutions: what works, what doesn’t (by The Asian Development Bank); Implementing the New Urban Agenda in Cuba (by the Institute of Physical Planning, Government of Cuba and others).

Participants liked the side events as they were inspiring because they showed new ways of

implementing the New Urban Agenda. The

formats engaged participants. The interactive events were most appreciated. The event on the SMART-ECO Project (by the University of Nottingham) stood out as it included discussion groups, interactive questions and answers, and prior- as well as post-networking opportunities. The events could have been more diverse, however. UN-Habitat staff responding to the UN-Habitat Staff Survey felt that the branches should have been involved in the selection of side events. Participants suggested better communication and events. They also proposed to cluster events according to thematic focus.

Training events

The 60 training events enhanced the knowledge and skills of the participants at the Forum. The training also targeted audiences to support implementation of the Agenda and reaching the SDGs. The training provided methods and approaches and showed innovative tools. For example, massive online open courses for Advancing the Implementation of the New Urban Agenda (by the Institute for Housing and Urban Development Studies and UCLG

Africa); Promoting Decent Work and Livelihood Opportunities and Supporting Inclusive Economies in Cities for All (by the University of Lagos and others).

The training events were popular and of high quality. Coaching on the SDGs, slum upgrading and online training courses were much appreciated.


The upfront registration for the training events turned out to be counterproductive as many who were registered failed to attend the actual training.20

20 Malaysia, URBANICE, Ministry of Urban Well-being, Housing and Local Government (2018). the Ninth Session of the World Urban Forum (WUF9), Operational Report. Kuala Lumpur.

21 As commented in the Participant Surveys as well in many interviews.

The training events also suffered from last minute planning. Many participants found the format of the networking and training events were not sufficiently participatory.21 They suggested more active forms of engagement in diverse and innovative platforms.

Analysis

Change objectives: Individual intermediate change outcomes: ICO2. Enhanced knowledge or skills. ICO6. New implementation know-how.


Change agents / Target audience: WUF9 participants and targeted audiences (?)

Change method / Delivery: No information.

Follow-up / monitoring: No information.

Urban talks

All 3 urban talks featured keynote sessions or dialogues by renowned urban thinkers who discussed the implementation of the New Urban Agenda. They highlighted ways of citizens’ engagement and explored collaboration in general. The following talks were held: Urban Talk

on Municipal Finance; Creativity and Innovation in Cities; and Cities of Jane Jacobs: Urbanization in 21st Century.

The participant impact survey indicated that the talks were much appreciated and inspirational.

Analysis

Change objectives: Individual intermediate change outcomes: ICO4. Strengthened coalitionss. ICO5. Enhanced networks in general.



Change method / Delivery: Change method not defined.Keynote speeches; dialogues.


City events and WUF9 village

Events on local culture and tradition were organized in Kuala Lumpur to showcase regeneration efforts in the city’s historic core. The events were built around music, dance, food, and architecture. However, they included more

modern features such as a cycling competition, urban brains, and a world urban run. All these occasions created a legacy of WUF9 for Kuala Lumpur.


The city events, organized by the host country, and the WUF9 Village were much appreciated and patronized mostly by Malaysians. Yet some WUF9 participants found the activities lacking

22 Recurrent remark in surveys and interviews.

ideas and innovation.22 They felt that closer collaboration with UN-Habitat could have lifted the events to a higher level.

Analysis

Change objectives: Individual intermediate change outcomes: ICO1. Raised awareness. ICO2. Enhanced knowledge or skills.



Change method / Delivery: Experience real-life initiatives.

Follow-up / monitoring: Some initiatives remain in place. No monitoring framework set.

Technical visits

Nine technical visits for WUF9 delegates were organized to learn about urbanization in Malaysia and the Malaysia Urban Well-being Concept. The visits aimed at sharing experiences and enhancing knowledge.

They included urban housing, urban greenery and urban regeneration. At least 1,500 delegates visited.

Participants enjoyed the visits; for example, to the planned towns of Putrajaya and Cyberjaya.

Analysis

Change objectives: Individual intermediate change outcomes: ICO2. Enhanced knowledge or skills.

Change agents / Target audience: Institutional change objectives: none set.Delegates

Change method / Delivery: Technical visits

Follow-up / monitoring: No information

Parallel events

Kuala Lumpur hosted 23 parallel events by WUF partners outside the main WUF9 venue. They included Australia Asia Smart Cities Forum’18, by the Australian Trade and Investment Commission; a joint meeting of the International Society of City and Regional Planners and the Habitat

Professionals Forum; and the Expert Group Meeting on the Gender Strategy for Implementing Women’s Land Right, by the Global Land Tool Network, Huairou Commission, University of East London and the International Islamic University of Malaysia, among other events.


Participants found that there were too many parallel events, especially when they interfered with the main one of the Forum.23 The suggestion

23 Recurrent remark in surveys and interviews.

was made to focus more on content and quality than on numbers.

Analysis

Change objectives: Individual intermediate change outcomes: ICO1. Raised awareness. ICO2. Enhanced knowledge and skills. ICO4. Strengthened coalitions. ICO5. Enhanced networks. ICO6. Increased implementation know-how.

Urban Library

The Urban Library organized thirty-three events to consult recent publications and presentations,

and book signings by prominent urban experts and academics. The library aimed at expanding knowledge. There were also rooms for networking among participants. UN-Habitat’s Urban Planning and Design Branch and the

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development launched the Global State of

the National Urban Policy Report; Texas Tech University presented Citizen-Sourced Data: Participatory Technologies for Redeveloping Informal Settlements.

Analysis

Change objectives: Individual intermediate change outcomes: ICO2. Enhanced knowledge or skills. ICO5. Enhanced networks.



Change method / Delivery: Consultation of recent publications; presentations; book signings; networking in dedicated spaces.


Exhibition

Seventy-nine exhibition booths showcased. These consisted of countries and city programmes, initiatives, partnerships; private sector initiatives on services, products and innovative technical solutions; projects by non-governmental organizations and academia; and the work of United Nations agencies and partners.

The exhibition area covered over 12,000 m². The exhibitions were public and themed along “Cities 2030, Cities for All: Implementing the New Urban Agenda”. The exhibitions were dedicated meeting and networking areas. There was an UN-Habitat

pavilion for participants to meet with UN-Habitat staff and learn about its mandate and work. The World Urban Campaign was also represented.

The participants highly valued the exhibitions that showcased urban solutions from across the world. They informed stakeholders about their work, different organizations and countries. Participants found the hands-on interactive events and opportunities offered to communicate with experts from diverse countries interesting. There were ample meeting rooms.


Exhibition hall photo © UN-Habitat

Analysis

Change objectives: Individual intermediate change outcomes: ICO1. Raised awareness. ICO2. Enhanced knowledge or skills. ICO3. Improved consensus and teamwork. ICO4. Strengthened coalitions. ICO5. Enhanced networks. ICO6. New implementation know-how.


Change agents / Target audience: All including the general public.

Change method / Delivery: Exhibitions, networking in dedicated areas, exchange with partners.



PART THREE

The overall Forum

5. Synthesis of findings

WUF9 affirmed that the Forum convened by UN-Habitat is the world’s premier conference on cities and sustainable urbanization. Tens of thousands of people gathered to renew their commitments to the implementation of the New Urban Agenda. They also recognized the Forum’s role as an accelerator for the achievement of the 2030 Agenda for 2030 Agenda and the Sustainable Development Goals.

In the participant impact survey, 93 per cent

of respondents rated WUF9 overall as a very successful or successful event. The Forum was attended by 24,331 participants; 164 countries were represented. WUF9 registered the highest number of participants of any session of the Forum since inception. An overview of forums held and number of participants are shown in figure 3.

Moreover, WUF9 demonstrated the convening power of the Forum, as well as the growing global focus on cities as drivers for sustainable development. Of the total participants accredited, 19,237 were attendees and 5,094 assisted in the Forum’s organization. Approximately 3 of 10

participants were internationals; also 45 of the 47 least developed countries were represented.

24 Ibid.

WUF9 was conceived as a key platform to gather input on the implementation of the New Urban Agenda. It was a unique platform for action-oriented and networking purposes for stakeholders who use the Agenda as a tool and an accelerator for the achievement of the Goals.

The most liked events, according to the on-site participant survey, were: training (13 per cent), networking (12 per cent), special sessions (10 per cent), exhibition and dialogues (each 9 per cent).

InnovationWUF9 introduced new and innovative activities to include a diverse range of stakeholders beyond national governments and to maximize the involvement of UN-Habitat’s regional offices beyond its headquarters in Nairobi. To that extent, the WUF Secretariat, for example, installed regional partnerships and monitoring officers in its regional offices. The officers promoted WUF9 in their respective regions and organized “urban breakfasts” to include national and regional stakeholders in the preparation of the Forum and to promote WUF9. This resulted in a participation of at least 75 per cent of stakeholders from

outside national governments.

This regional dimension of the WUF preparation resulted in new partnership opportunities at regional, subregional and national level.24

2002 Nairobi, Kenya

Sustainable Urbanization

1,200Almost

1

2004 Barcelona,

Spain

Cities: Crossroads of cultures, inclusiveness and

integration?

4,300Over

2

2006 Vancouver,

Canada

Our Future: Sustainable Cities – Turning Ideas into

Action

10,400Over

3

2008 Nanjing,

China

Harmonious Urbanization:The Challenge of Balanced

Territorial Development

8,000Almost

4

2010Rio de Janeiro,

Brazil

The Right to the City: Bridging the Urban Divide

13,800Almost

5

The Urban FutureUrban equity in development - cities

for life

2012 Naples,

Italy

8,200Over

22,000Over

24,000Over

6

2014 Medellin, Colombia

7

Cities 2030,Cities for All

2018 Kuala Lumpur,

Malaysia

9

Source: UN-Habitat (30 April 2018), Ninth Session of the World Urban Forum Summary Report.

Figure 3 Overview of Forums held and number of participants


WUF9 introduced stakeholder roundtables in parallel with the dialogues and special sessions. Roundtables offered a unique platform for stakeholder participation. The roundtables identified new issues, shared lessons learnt and exchanged innovative urban solutions. They were highly appreciated, as was indicated in the participant impact survey. Partner constituent groups presented their projects and displayed their efforts at implementing the New Urban Agenda.

Additionally, WUF9 introduced grassroots assemblies. These were a legacy of Habitat III. For the first time, sessions of the Forum were co-led by grassroots organizations. They demonstrated

the importance of the grassroots involvement in the debate and achievement of sustainable urban development.

WUF9 promoted United Nations collaborative action in a number of dedicated events. These included a meeting with United Nations Resident Coordinators and “One UN Room” events. The Resident Coordinator’s Office in Malaysia played an instrumental role in mobilizing and coordinating the United Nations system’s participation. Building on efforts of the Habitat III Conference, the One UN Room events further enhance the United Nations system’s collaborative efforts to support the

implementation and monitoring of the New Urban Agenda.

Profile of ParticipantsThe Ninth Forum was the most participatory United Nations non-legislative assembly, with 75 per cent of the Forum’s participants representing stakeholder groups other than national governments. Around 40 per cent of total participants were under 32 years old.25 The number and diversity at WUFs has increased considerably since the 2002 inaugural Session in Nairobi. WUF9 achieved record attendance and diversity. A total of 164 countries were represented, including 95 per cent of the least developed countries. More than 45 per cent of the participants were women. WUF9 achieved the highest participation of ministers, with 100

25 United Nations Human Settlements Programme (30 April 2018), Ninth Session of the World Urban Forum Summary report.

ministerial-level delegations, and the highest participation of the United Nations system, represented by 36 of the world body’s offices.

Participants from national governments, academia and research groups accounted for the highest percentage of participants. Local and regional governments, civil society organizations, the private sector and foundations were also present.

Focus on capacity development A total 60 training events, the largest number in any Forum, were organized as part of capacity development for New Urban Agenda’s implementation. As a central segment of the Forum and a major contributor to enhancing

knowledge and transferring urban solutions, training covered a wide range of topics directly related to the Forum’s core theme.

Relevance

The objective of the ForumThe Governing Council 18/5 of 16 February 2001 established WUF “with a view to strengthening the coordination of international support to the implementation of the Habitat Agenda”. This objective combines one of the expected accomplishments of WUF and the ultimate objective to achieve the Urban Agenda or

“advancing sustainable urban development”. The challenge with the former is that it lacks precision, and therefore cannot be achieved and measured within the framework of this Forum.

The WUF9 Concept Note refines the objective in terms of “reporting on the effective implementation of the NUA”. WUF9 is the first forum to refine the overall objective. Dedicated indicators were also added. Nevertheless, participants and stakeholder groups felt that this Forum’s objectives were not clearly communicated. Accordingly, the evaluation revealed that participants had diverse perceptions and expectations of the Forum. This created confusion, as a clear objective is needed to align the stakeholders and the different events of the WUF with a common vision.


Forum theme WUF9’s theme served as an advocacy tool mobilize a broad range of stakeholders and countries to participate in the Forum. The theme, Cities 2030, Cities for All: Implementing the New Urban Agenda, was aligned with the Forum’s objective. “Cities for All”, refers to the inclusive nature of the Forum. Most participants interviewed could not indicate the significance of the theme.26 They agreed that the Forum was about advancing sustainable development but did not see the relevance of the theme or found it reductant or confusing.

WUF9 and Habitat IIIThe Forum took place 16 months after Habitat III27

was held in October 2016. Therefore, fewer high-level leaders than usual attended the WUF9.28 At project preparation level, this was analysed as a possible risk for the Forum but no mitigating measures were proposed.

The ninth Forum built on the legacy of Habitat III, which also created confusion. A number of interviewees were unclear about the difference between the SDGs and the New Urban Agenda. Some participants expected a focus of WUF9 to be on Goal 11 and on measuring its progress. Especially because the New Urban Agenda does not have its own indicators, hewing to the SDGs seemed an option.

“Were the urban community to feel the same way, the World Urban Forum would likely have been rebranded as the Global SDG11 Conference and there would be a greater focus on measuring progress towards Goal 11.”

Source: Gregory Scrugg, Urbanet in “New Urban Agenda Implementation slow, if not steady”. His comment was made on the oc-casion of WUF9.

26 This question was asked to all interviewees.27 The NUA is complementary to the follow-up and review process of the 2030 Agenda and SDGs. The NUA is the first

internationally agreed document detailing implementation of the urban dimension of the SDGs. It builds on SDG 11, but also addresses a wider range of urbanization and human settlements issues as the sectoral nature of the SDGs requires a complementary and integrating spatial framework for achieving the 2030 Agenda. In this regard, the NUA does not itself directly address SDGs, but facilitates their delivery within urban areas. It deepens a number of substantive urban issues and focuses on local level implementation; because the NUA addresses a much wider range of urban issues than the SDGs, including national urban policies, urban legislation frameworks, and municipal finance systems, it will require its own follow-up and review process.

28 Scruggs, Gregory (2018). New Urban Agenda Implementation slow, if not steady, 187 ministers, vice ministers, mayors and one head of state attended the WUF9, compared with 202 during WUF7. United Nations Human Settlements Programme. (2018). WUF9 Draft Report shared on 10 December 2018.

An event or a transformative process?Questions were raised including is the Forum an event or a transformative process with a focus on strengthening its participants, or both? Some stakeholders clearly see the Forum as an event in its own right. It creates a momentum where the exchange between the various participants and the knowledge that is transferred as a whole inevitably leads to results into advancing sustainable urban development. But more stakeholders, including UN-Habitat staff, the host country team as well as other participants wanted to know the results from the different sessions. They proposed preparatory activities in advance of the Forum as well as follow-up actions through partnerships fostered during the Forum.

The host country team as well as a number of events organizers already evaluated the impact of their events themselves for their internal use. Also, the Governing Council has mandated UN-Habitat to assess the impact and outcome of each WUF session using a results-based approach. A number of high-level participants that were interviewed were uncertain if they would attend the next Forum, saying their participation would depend on whether the occasion would advance sustainable urban development. They want to see demonstrated results. They specifically asked to be informed about the conclusions of this evaluation. Of

the WUF9 participants, 33 per cent travelled to Malaysia compared with 27 per cent at WU7 in Colombia. For those travelling from other countries, attending the WUF9 was considered an “investment”.

“Fifteen months after Habitat III wrapped up in Quito, there is much talk of frameworks and action plans, but little in the way of fresh deliverables,”

Gregory Scruggs says in New Urban Agenda Implementation slow, if not steady.


When asked about the Forum’s objective, most participants referred to the outcomes. Others referred to the implementation of the New Urban Agenda and SDGs, and to reporting on their implementation. Most participants saw the Forum as a tool for capacity development to reach more sustainable urban development.

Relevance of the indicators

1. The results of an event are typically measured in terms of numbers such as of attendees, social media mentions, and returning attendees. A second tool is using satisfaction

surveys, measuring “return on investment”.

Soft indicators like brand awareness, networking opportunities, training, and professional enrichment are mostly not measured in events because this is found to be too difficult. In WUF9, well over half of the indicators of the current logframe are those of growth and satisfaction. They give an indication of the success of the Forum as an event but do not capture longer-term results in achieving sustainable urban development. Also, many indicators could not be measured because they do not feature in the survey questionnaires, or because they just could not be measured, or are outside the scope of this

evaluation. Indeed, indicators should be specific and measurable to be useful.29

2. The evaluation revealed that WUF9 participants and organizers viewed the Forum as an event but they also want to know the longer-term results. In an attempt to capture these longer-term results, this evaluation regards WUF as a “change process” through strengthening its participants into building their capacity to reach the objectives of sustainable urbanization. As already indicated in the document, the evaluation measures change at two levels: (i) the intermediate capacity outcomes at individual or group level; and (ii) the institutional capacity of change objectives at governmental or institutional level towards reaching the WUF objective.

29 United Nations Human Settlements Programme (2017a). Results-Based Management Handbook

.UN-Habitat Evaluation Framework (2016b).

Disruptive discussionsTo the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) in Putrajaya, Malaysia, the objective of the Forum is much more ambitious than observed above. The Forum serves to “changing the global agenda”, not only with regard to urbanization but also in terms of the global development agenda as urban enhancement has become one of the most relevant issues of development. The UNDP expects UN-Habitat to set more ambitious objectives for the Forum than merely achieving the expected accomplishments shown in figures IV and V.

Other high-level interviewees mirrored UNDP’s

vision for the Forum and its objective. They did not attend the Forum with expectations at outcome level. They already have the knowledge and they meet their partners at other events during the year. They are merely interested in advancing sustainable urbanization by “changing the tide”.

The high-level interviewees were not interested in the WUF9 theme or in measuring the implementation of the New Urban Agenda. They came to be inspired and to have disruptive discussions with experts from all over the world. They wanted new ideas by learning what others were doing in urban development. For example,

they wanted to know what an NGO was doing in Africa or elsewhere. For them, this would be the unique feature of the Forum.

Notwithstanding their acknowledgement of the relevance of the WUF9 as an event, there was urgency in the plea of the interviewees. They wanted discruptive discussions to be more prominent in the Forum. Box 1 provides an example. They came to discuss fundamental issues, delve into them and change course in spatial development. The evaluation measures this at objective level.

The participant impact survey says, “Since WUF is not a legislative meeting, its organizers should not have to follow UN formats used in legislative meetings but be given the leeway to arrange more interactive and lively sessions.”


BOX 1 UPCOMING THEMES URBAN DEVELOPMENT - SHRINKAGE

“Space is an essential good, that needs a better organization … If we look at the SDGs (of the United Nations) or the objectives of the Paris Agreement, we are desperately running behind. And even if we would succeed (into achieving them), this would not be a solution for nature, as nature needs space. A rhinoceros doesn’t care about photovoltaic panels; he is not going to die from a rising sea level or a small rise in temperature. This rhino needs space, as our economy also needs space … We need to start with some fundamentals, from the basic insight that we are the problem.

… We do not have the right to claim so much (space)

… Property as an outdated concept

… Concepts like car-sharing and co-housing are becoming a necessity

… Solidarity is key. I urge citizens to take matters into their own hands again, so that they are not only customers but also shareholders

… We need to create more ‘territorial awareness’.

“Today policymakers and planners face the challenge of restructuring the spatial galaxy.”

Source: Architect Participant

ContentThe participants said they were pleased with the quality of the presentations and the discussions. However, 33 per cent found the overall Forum “very relevant” to their work and 60 per cent found it only “somehow relevant”, indicating that the level of effectiveness of the sessions merits a review. Some findings from presentations and discussions:

1. Aspects of innovation: 44 per cent of the respondents of the participant impact survey and many of the interviewees testified that they attend WUF to be exposed to new practices and to be inspired.

2. Capturing interest: Admittedly, the high-level events are more political and therefore necessary, but the content of the smaller events and bilateral meetings was found to be more interesting. Participants especially found the discourse on local solutions in specific countries inspiring and effective to transfer innovation. The more generic and global discourse was less valued. In-depth discussions compared to speeches and panel discussions were preferred.

3. Ownership from the Branches: Some UN-Habitat staff mentioned a lack of ownership from the side of the thematic branches over the content of the events and

the way they were moderated. Branches felt insufficiently involved in the preparations and follow-up of the events compromising the quality of the content.

4. Quality versus quantity: Many participants and staff found that there were too many sessions and often missed thematic focus. They argued for fewer but more qualitative and focused events. Events, especially the high-level ones, competed for attention with the many side events. Event organizers had to spend time and effort in promoting their own event, which the evaluator thought unnecessary and even counterproductive.

Several respondents of the participant survey as well as many of the respondents in the UN-Habitat staff survey suggested that the duration of WUF to shortened.

Effectiveness

Achievement of expected accomplishments

Intermediate Change OutcomesThe evaluation assesses the longer-term results of WUF9 by measuring change on two levels. Level 1: Six intermediate change outcomes or effects that correspond to the first three WUF9 expected accomplishments, improving the ability or disposition of individuals or groups to take action.

The figures 4 and 5 indicate that at the level of individuals or groups, WUF9 deals with all


the changes in behaviour, relationships and processes, products and services needed to affect improvements at institutional level to implement the New Urban Agenda. The focus of WUF9 events was on enhancing the knowledge and skills of participants. Increasing implementation know-how was the element to gain least attention at the events.

EA1: Raising awareness on sustainable urban development among stakeholders and constituencies, including the public.

All of the WUF9 sessions raised awareness of their participants, who now better understand their role in implementing the New Urban Agenda and are more motivated and confident. Most or

92 per cent of the participants in the participant impact survey found that WUF9 somehow or effectively raised their awareness. But only the dialogues and the stakeholder assemblies specifically targeted raising awareness on specific issues. Participants said the women’s assembly as well as those of youth and children enhanced their awareness of gender and youth issues, and were therefore appreciated.

EA2. Improvement of collective knowledge on sustainable urban development through inclusive open debates, sharing of lessons learnt and the exchange of urban solutions, good practices and policies.

Nearly 40 per cent of the WUF9 sessions targeted enhancing knowledge and skills, especially the events organized under the responsibility of UN-Habitat’s thematic branches. Most or 93 per cent of the participants in the impact survey found that WUF9 somehow or effectively enhanced their knowledge and skills.

Although there was broad appreciation for the quality of the sessions in general, there was criticism of the content and format of the events. Not all participants were inspired; some were even bored. A lack of creativity was mentioned as a reason for this, as many events were quite similar. Especially, speeches were found to be too generic and some speakers merely used the Forum to display their own successes, unrelated to the Forum’s theme. The lack of interaction during the main events also received much criticism.

Source: Participant impact survey; participants responding on the question on how the WUF9 enhanced their capacity.

1. Raised Awarenes

2. Enhanced Knowledge and skills

3. Improved consensus and teamwork

5. Enhanced Networks

6. Increased Implementation Know-How

4. Strengthened Coalitions

Source: Analysis of the change objectives in the different WUF events deduced from the analysis in Part two of this report (the interpretation is relative as it does not capture the actual number of attendees per event.)

1. Raised Awarenes

2. Enhanced Knowledge and skills

3. Improved consensus and teamwork

5. Strengthened Networks

6. Increased Implementation Know-How

4. Strengthened Coalitions

Figure 4 Change outcomes as targeted in different WUF9 events

Figure 5 Change as a result in the capacity of participants


Increased Implementation Know-How – Ref. to EA2

The evaluation assessed implementation know-how separately as improved formulation or implementation of polices, strategies, or plans through discovery and innovation by discussing specific issues regarding the implementation of the New Urban Agenda and implementation issues at local level. The following events specifically targeted increasing implementation know-how: the high-level roundtables, dialogues, assemblies, abitat in Action Room, training and parallel events, and exhibitions. Side events also showed tangible initiatives towards implementation of the Agenda in different

countries. Events with private sector participation were much appreciated, such as the one with Ericsson. However, private sector attendance was too low. The business assembly failed to mobilize important private sector representation, notwithstanding the importance of mobilizing the sector to implement the Agenda. The suggestion was made to revise AFINUA through a participative process with the regions and the Habitat Agenda Partners.

EA3. Increase of coordination and cooperation within the United Nations system and with different stakeholders and constituencies for an effective implementation of the New Urban

Agenda and the urban dimension of the SDGs.

The networking events were popular. Particularly, UN-Habitat staff aimed at linking up with partners and potential donors during the Forum. In all, 143 networking events focused, exclusively, on networking and partnerships. The assemblies, stakeholder roundtables, parallel events, and urban talks also had networking components. Three urban talks highlighted ways of citizens’ engagement and explored collaboration mechanisms. The library and exhibition spaces offered room and events for networking. Many participants proposed to make the format of the networking and training events more participatory. They suggested more active forms of engagement in diverse and innovative platforms. They also wanted to contact partners well before WUF and wanted to follow up with them afterwards. But the Secretariat did not disclose names and contacts of speakers and participants.

“Building of people to people network around the world is more important than any agenda, idea or action because it creates a future of possibilities. I would suggest that you provide linkages for all the participants to list themselves so that they can be reached out later for collaboration in the future.”

Source: Respondent, Participant Impact Survey.

The evaluation revealed the need for UN-Habitat to undertake internal team building and communication activities. WUF increased the team spirit within UN-Habitat. Staff met with colleagues, especially those in the regions, and

learnt about their work. It was suggested that internal workshops be organized in this regard, and that there be more internal collaboration, in a timely manner, in order to build a stronger event.

The participant impact survey questionnaire distinguishes between three different types of coordination and cooperation outcomes: (i) improved consensus and teamwork (collaboration within a group of people tied by a common task; within UN-Habitat); (ii) strengthened coalitions (collaboration between individuals or groups with diverse objectives to advance a common agenda; with United Nations agencies); and (iii) enhanced networks (collaboration between

individuals or groups with a common interest but not a formal common agenda for action; partners in development).

Institutional change objectives

Level 2: Three change institutional change objectives are evaluated to strengthen capacity at the institutional level, government, or others that lead to achieving the objective of WUF9 or longer-term results.

Figures 6 and 7 indicate that at the level of institutional change to implement the New Urban Agenda, WUF9 events targeted enhanced “efficiency of policy instruments”. When asked how they applied the results of WUF9 in the workplace, the participant impact survey revealed that it equally achieved (i) strengthening the participants’ ownership with regards to the implementation of the Agenda; and (ii) improved


the efficiency of policy instruments. However, participants in this impact survey did not mention that it strengthened efficient organizational arrangements towards implementing the Agenda.

Only few events referred to change objectives at the institutional level. At this level, nearly 70 per cent aimed to enhance the efficiency of policy instruments, with only 30 per cent that aimed to strengthen stakeholder ownership and effectiveness of organizational arrangements.

With regard to “efficiency of policy instruments and strength of stakeholder ownership”, the high-level roundtables, dialogues and special sessions specifically aimed at strengthening

the stakeholders in policy development and enhancing the priority that is attached to implementing the New Urban Agenda.

With regard to “effectiveness of organizational arrangements”, the special sessions aimed for effectiveness of organizational arrangements by enhancing the stakeholders’ engagement in monitoring and reporting on the Agenda’s implementation, reviewing monitoring mechanisms.

Figures 6 and 7 indicate that WUF9 events should be better aligned to the expectations of the participants. At WUF, UN-Habitat mainly

focused on transferring knowledge and skills as a knowledge-based organization but the participant impact and staff surveys revealed that networking and partnerships was crucial for implementation of the Agenda.

EA4. Provision of substantive and strategic inputs from multilateral organizations, national and subnational governments, and stakeholders into reporting on implementation of the New Urban Agenda.

WUF9 was conceived as a milestone for reporting on the New Urban Agenda. The session reports delivered at the end of the Forum include resolutions and commitments of partners towards reporting on the Agenda’s implementation such as the following: The Global Taskforce of Local and Regional Governments committed to defining effective mechanisms to ensure full involvement of the constituency in the

monitoring and reporting process of the Agenda. In this regard, the WUF9 indicator of an online platform on the UN-Habitat website was not achieved. The surveys and interviews conducted for the evaluation reveal a lack of clarity on the connection between the Agenda and the Sustainable Development Goals, especially for non-professionals and for the general public. Some participants suggest reporting on the Agenda through the reporting mechanisms of the SDGs, which are better known.

EA5. Raising UN-Habitat’s profile and strategic programming, supported with specific focus on implementing and subsequently feeding the six-year Strategic Plan and biennial Work

Programme and Budget

Interviews revealed a positive image of UN-Habitat as it showcased its competence in high-quality sessions. Indicators are set in the logframe to measure EA5, but they are not assessed in the surveys. A two-track system in delivery and monitoring was proposed in the staff survey to: (i) raise the profile of WUF and UN-Habitat; and (ii) strengthen the thematic areas.

Format

Events that stood out include the Women’s Assemblies as well as those of the Youth and

Children; and the event on the SMART-ECO project, by the University of Nottingham, that included discussion groups, interactive questions and answers.

The networking event “Achieving slower cities: Towards the New Urban Agenda” by the NGO Despacio was designated a true networking event. Its method was based on experience gained through previous Forums. Despacio also evaluated the results of the event.

Another remarkable session was “Good Design, Good Planning: aligning practice, communities and education in the implementation of Agenda 2030”, and the session on “Forced Evictions and Public Space”.

The format for the main discussions of the Forum was defined in annex IV of the report of the first


Forum in 2002. It stipulates that the format should be dialogue with presentations and discussions among all participants on specific issues. But this format was narrowed for WUF9 and consisted of speeches and panel discussions, which many participants did not like.

The session formats by stakeholder groups, on

the other hand, were better appreciated since a

variety of formats were used and they were more

participatory. Some of these networking events

specifically focused on interaction and they were

very much liked.

Participants called for a more open and mixed

dialogue among a broad range of partners including

high-level policymakers, civil society organizations,

and academics. The networking events were

especially criticized as yet more panel presentations

with too many homogenous participants. Participants

suggested clustering sessions among themes rather

than by stakeholder group. Networking within just

one type of stakeholder group was not found useful.

For example, some youth assemblies were attended

mostly by youth alone and the participants felt that

they were not being taken seriously due to the

absence of decision makers.

“I heard that many organizers for stakeholder events (assemblies, stakeholder roundtables, etc.) wanted more people from UN-Habitat to attend and felt that they were speaking to themselves…This is especially the case for grassroots events”. Source: Respondent, Participant Impact Survey.

“By having real/transformative impact on the ground… We need to be transformative, i.e. change the reality, not only by talking nice theory. We need to actually do it. Demonstrate it” Source: Respondent, UN-Habitat Staff Survey.

There is a clear demand to change the format and

enrich the Forum’s content. Participants attach much

value to the Forum, especially to change the way

urbanization as a whole is approached. There is a

certain urgency that they feel is insufficiently tackled. Source: Participant Impact Survey; participants responding to the question how they applied the results of the WUF9 in the workplace.

Strength of stakeholder ownership

Efficiency of policy instruments

Effectiveness of organisational arrangements

Figure 7 Institutional change objectives achieved in participants

Source: Analysis of the change objectives in the different WUF events in Part two of this report (the interpretation is relative as it does not capture the actual number of attendees per events).

Strength of stakeholder ownership

Efficiency of policy instruments

Effectiveness of organisational arrangements

Figure 6 Institutional change objectives as targeted in the different WUF9 events


Efficiency

Efficient delivery of the Forum

Malaysia successfully bid to host WUF9. Reasons for

choosing Kuala Lumpur to host the event included

the modern venue, the hotels, public transport, and

supporting facilities. Amongst other aspects, the

Malaysian tagline of “Bring Back WUF to Asia” also

attracted the attention of the UN-Habitat.

There is broad recognition that “WUF9 as an event”

was great. This was expressed in the surveys and

interviews on the achievements of Malaysia in

organizing the event. The host also looked after

the well-being of the participants, in keeping with

the country’s hospitality culture. This sentiment was

captured by an interviewee who described the Forum

as “amazing.” But the achievements of Malaysia

go w beyond organizing the event. The run up to

WUF9 presented the country with considerable

hurdles. However, determined to make WUF9 a

success, Malaysia took robust actions to overcome

challenges in the run up to the Forum. The evaluation

further elaborates on the delivery of WUF9 as it was

exemplary and will inspire future WUFs.

The Malaysian government decided to organize

WUF9 in-house because it felt that would ensure

collaboration between government ministries

and institutions. Other than being merely event

organizers, the government engaged urban

practitioners to organize the Forum because they

were knowledgeable, and therefore better placed

to tailor the events to the theme. Furthermore, the

government wanted organizers that could enhance

the benefits of the Forum and who did not have

commercial interests at stake.

A Local Organizing Committee and the Centre of

Excellence of Sustainable Cities and Community Well-

being (or URBANICE Malaysia) was set up for this

purpose. URBANICE expedited the implementation

of the Forum, acted as focal point, and coordinated

between the WUF Secretariat and the Government

of Malaysia. URBANICE consists of a core group of

10 people who were seconded or contracted. They

started work one year before the Forum and are still

assisting the government in urban development.

30 The WUF9 volunteer groups:Technical reporting, Registration and accreditation, Room Management, Security control, Interpretation management, Urban village @Medan Pasar, Help desk/Ask me, Way finding, Health and well-being, Environmental Rangers, General tasks, Technical visits, Malaysia pavilion, Airport team

URBANICE was supported by at least 363 local

and international volunteers. The body, under the

Ministry of Housing and Local Government, hired 37

interpreters of whom 13 were Malaysians.

Furthermore, the organization of the Forum in

Malaysia encompassed a network at three levels

namely: (i) the Local Organizing Committee at the

highest level, chaired by the Minister of Housing and

Local Government and directly working with

UN-Habitat; (ii) the Technical Coordination Committee

at a second level to coordinate technical and

cross-cutting aspects among the different partners

in implementation; and (iii) a third level of 12 preparatory subcommittees, headed by different agencies under the different ministries.

URBANICE developed strategies and methods to

deliver the Forum successfully, reduce its cost, maximize benefits, and to mobilize the region. The anticipated benefits included: (i) enhancing local capacity in various fields; (ii) strengthening local small and medium-sized enterprises and vendors’ capacity and provide financial benefits; (iii) strengthening the regional position of Malaysia in urban development; (iv) providing Malaysia and Asia with international exposure; (v) saving resources; and (vi) making WUF9 into an enjoyable event for all participants.

They developed measures and strategies that included:

• Maximizing the deployment of volunteers. There were three categories: technical, specialized and hospitality; further divided into 14 groups based on specific job descriptions.30 The volunteers were prepared and clothed. Different to previous WUFs and following the Habitat III legacy, United Nations volunteers trained local trainers to prepare the volunteers. Participation in the Forum enhanced the volunteers’ and liaison officers’ confidence and their leadership skills. WUF9 was the first Forum to deploy local liaison officers to assist VIPs and foreign delegates. Despite all this, some high-level participants expressed that they expected even more support.


• Reduced staff. The core group of 10 people was adequate during the preparation phase of the Forum. However, towards the end approximately 30 more people needed to be deployed. This shortfall was filled with “volunteer buddies”.

• URBANICE developed partnership models with non-governmental organizations and other stakeholders such as with THINK CITY and MiGHT. The partners were given full ownership of the events that they organized.

BOX 2 PARTNERS ORGANIZING WUF9 THINKCITY built an Urban Village in Medan Pasar in the historic core of Kuala Lumpur and outside the grounds of the convention centre, the main WUF9 venue. The village was meant to showcase how urban design could be used to create a better public realm. THINK CITY is a not-for-profit organization spearheading urban regeneration of historic city

centres.

The organization works with communities and exchanges with partners all over the world. During the Forum, it exchanged ideas and best practices with participants.

MiGHT, the Malaysian Industry-Government Group for High Technology, organized networking events on measuring progress and success towards achieving the SDGs. The group established the Smart and Sustainable Cities initiative, which is a membership platform and technology think-tank under the prime minister’s department. The initiative is co-chaired by representatives from the public and private sector. The representatives ensure that all government projects are aligned to the SDGs.

URBANICE introduced new ideas and generated initiatives to continue after the Forum. They are as follows:

• Operational improvements such as combining registration and security measures into one system

• Saved resources by maximizing the use of local companies. To compare, the New Urban Agenda booklet at the United Nations rate costs approximately USD10, but in Malaysia it was produced for USD 1

• Maximized support from government agencies and institutions, as URBANICE is directly answerable to the Ministry of Well-being, Housing and Local Government. The ministry also delivered 66 per cent of the manpower to the Forum, excluding the volunteers. The ministry worked closely with the ministries of Internal Security, with Foreign Affairs for Visas, and with Transport for logistics. URBANICE was also able to

operate on government commercial rates. For the opening ceremony, URBANICE engaged government dancers. The Malaysian Institute for Translation and Books deployed 37 interpreters of whom 13 were Malaysian

• His Royal Highness Prince Charles Philip Arthur George, Prince of Wales, visited Malaysia in November 2017 and he recorded a speech for WUF9 that was aired during the opening ceremony. Malaysia and the Prince also discussed a possible collaboration with the Prince of Wales Foundation on the establishment of the Commonwealth Network of Cities and Nations.

The Host Country and Conference AgreementThe Host Country and Conference Agreement was signed on 10 March 2017 in Nairobi between the Executive Director of UN-Habitat and the Malaysian Minister of Urban Well-being, Housing and Local Government. The agreement applies to the organization and the holding of WUF9 and it stipulates the rights and obligations of the two parties as well as the financial arrangements.

The drafting of the agreement took almost two years to be finalized and involved 44 main actions throughout the process. Previous forums also signed two separate agreements that were combined into one, better aligned Host Country and Conference Agreement. Negotiations on the participation of countries that do not have bilateral ties with Malaysia had to be clarified as well as access to the venue that constituted premises of the United Nations.


The Agreement states the thematic focus of WUF9 on the implementation of the New Urban Agenda and encourages building on the legacy of the Habitat III conference. It defines the objective and the purpose of WUF9 as “a valued platform to engage national governments, local authorities, citizen and stakeholders in the promotion, articulation and implementation of the New Urban Agenda”.

The Government of Malaysia contributed USD 6 million to the Forum. Of this, USD 4 million was deposited to UN-Habitat. The remaining USD 2 million was not transferred but served to support the activities of UN-Habitat in Malaysia. The USD 4 million served for shipment of equipment; for

UN-Habitat staff time; to hire consultants for the preparation of the Forum; for preparatory missions; for promotional and outreach material; for support to selected panellists and moderators; for support to participants from least developed and low-income countries; to support UN-Habitat staff and United Nations Security and Conference Services Staff; and for monitoring, reporting and evaluation. The Government contributed another USD 5 million in kind for providing the premises including equipment and facilities, simultaneous interpretation of the main sessions, equipped office space, security, organizing information and media, and providing video and photo coverage. After the Forum, UN-Habitat would provide a

detailed set of accounts other than the final audit, but at the time of the evaluation these accounts were still awaited.

Pre-WUF9In the run-up of WUF9, the Government of Malaysia repositioned itself in sustainable urbanization through its new membership in UN-Habitat’s Committee of Permanent Representatives and participation in Habitat III. Malaysia further promoted the Forum locally, regionally and internationally through social media channels, affiliates and Google, electronic media including television and radio, print media such as magazines and newspapers, marketing and physical promo on billboards and posters, for

31 The International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) is a registered charitable Organization whose mission is to promote human development and environmental sustainability. Available at https://www.iisd.org

The Earth Negotiations Bulletin is an independent reporting service on United Nations environment and development negotiations. Available at http://enb.iisd.org

example, in retail centres, and awareness raising events such as exhibitions. The Government issued limited edition stamps featuring WUF9 that were also available at the Forum’s merchandise centre.

The WUF9 eventThe venue of the Forum’s core events was the Kuala Lumpur Convention Centre in the heart of the city’s Central Business District as was established in the host country agreement. The exhibitions were a main feature consisting of 9,710m2 interconnected exhibition halls at street level that were open to the public.

Reporting was by the WUF Secretariat in

collaboration with the International Institute for Sustainable Development, through the Earth Negotiation Bulletin and meeting coverage.31 There was office space, Internet access and meeting room tables. The distribution of documents was “paper smart”. To avoid unnecessary printing, most documents regarding the events were also available on the WUF9 official website, which was managed by UN-Habitat. Web streaming was available for the broadcasting of UN Web TV by the Department of Public Information of the United Nations.

Registration, accreditation and access warranted major organization at WUF9. The WUF Secretariat

put in place an online registration system through the WUF9 official website. Participants who registered online could collect individual badges to access the venue. For last-minute participants, online registration reopened on 23 and 24 January 2018. On-site or walk-in registration was also possible. In total, 24,700 people registered online and another 12,206 people in situ.

Accreditation was also elaborate, as it needed room space, manpower and equipment. The process consisted of recognizing participants by identification and face recognition upon which a photo badge or pass was given to the visitors to enter the main venue. The United Nations Department of Safety and Security managed


accreditation, for which more than 2,000 m² floor space was provided. Accreditation started on 2 February and ran throughout the Forum. An anticipated accreditation of 25,000 participants was foreseen; in the end 25,660 participants were accredited.

The use of Quick Response Code (or QR codes) and the deployment of a facilitation team at the entrance of the accreditation centre helped the process.

Post-WUF9After WUF, URBANICE organized four consecutive days of local newspaper coverage. It also produced a detailed operational report and a

substantive and thematic report. URBANICE prepared a guiding framework to localize the New Urban Agenda in Malaysia.

Some hiccups for further considerationUN-Habitat did not honour all its contractual obligations towards the host country. Since the WUF9 website came late, UN-Habitat’s promotion of the Forum was delayed and WUF9 regular meetings only started in January 2018. Malaysia increased its efforts to promote the Forum and to support the website. This forced Malaysia to make last minute adjustments of its plans and to allocate additional funds to the promotion effort. One of the main reasons was that the concept note

was only issued at the end of December 2017. The document serves as a reference with which to align stakeholders and organize events. But since it came late, URBANICE acted and prepared reference documents in advance to target and mobilize the stakeholders.

The Host Country and Conference Agreement records the financial and practical obligations of the host country. However, as this is an agreement between two parties the commitments of UN-Habitat should have been more clearly defined. The practical division of tasks was stipulated in a separate document but the evaluator did not review this document. Malaysia would have preferred to have had more input on the content of events.

32 GA resolution from 23 December 2016: “should incorporate, to the extent possible, the inputs of multilateral organizations and processes where appropriate, civil society, the private sector and academia. It should build on existing platforms and processes such as the World Urban Forum convened by UN-Habitat”.

The rare hiccups with regard to the organization of WUF9 include frigid air conditioning. Another takeaway for the next Forum, as observed by a participant, is the need to purposefully adhere more to better consumption patterns by avoiding the dominant presence of plastic mineral bottles at the Forum, even if recycled.

Regarding the allocation of responsibilities, there is also room for improvement. For example, with regard to the exhibitions. An online Exhibition Guide explained how the WUF Secretariat appoints the exhibitors and URBANICE completes the booking and payment for the exhibition boots. Only the officially appointed contractor could carry out the custom booth construction services, but

this created confusion.

Mobilization of WUF9

Nairobi and New York

The UN-Habitat Governing Council, based in Nairobi, sets the major strategic and policy directions for UN-Habitat and approves its programmes and budget. The Committee of Permanent Representatives represents the Council at the UN-Habitat Secretariat. UN-Habitat is a convenor of WUF that has become a powerful tool to convey the role of urbanization in development and to strengthen the role of UN-

Habitat. As WUF is an entire part of UN-Habitat’s workplan, the Committee in Nairobi oversees WUF.

But the preparation of the WUF9 came at a time when Habitat III took place in October 2016 and the New Urban Agenda was adopted in December the same year. Discussions were ongoing about reporting on its implementation. The United Nations General Assembly resolution from 23 December 2016 on reporting on the implementation of the New Urban Agenda assigned a role to the Forum in this regard.32

This was confirmed in the Kuala Lumpur Declaration on Cities 2030 as the Forum would provide input and best practices from various


participants on what they are doing towards the implementation of the New Urban Agenda and urban SDGs. WUF9 was conceived as a milestone in reporting on the Agenda.

However, Habitat III was a United Nations-wide conference with an institutional firewall between the United Nations Secretariat and UN-Habitat. The fact that WUF9 built on the legacy of Habitat III was not always appreciated. This resulted in the late approval of the concept note and late mobilization of the Forum. The coordinator of both Habitat III and WUF9 was the same person. The Committee argued that this should have been avoided.

The WUF9 Concept NoteFrom WUF1 through WUF6, UN-Habitat’s Research and Capacity Development Branch prepared the Forum’s concept note and suggested the Forum’s theme be linked to the State of World Cities Report. The thematic branches actively collaborated in the shaping of the Forum. The World Cities Report was also launched during the Forum.

However, this approach changed beginning with WUF7. Other than focusing on the Forum’s content, the focus shifted to the Forum’s preparation as an event or brand. The input of the thematic branches diminished and the WUF

Secretariat took charge, headed by the Advocacy, Outreach and Communications Branch.

The following changed:

1. Due to enhanced outreach, WUF grew drastically and participant numbers more than doubled since WUF6. WUF6 in Naples, Italy, attracted 6,518 participants. That grew to 18,000 in WUF7 (April 2014) and 19.237 in WUF9 (February 2018). This is an achievement in itself. The United Nations General Assembly resolution 69/226 of 19 December 2014 recognized WUF “as the foremost global arena for interaction among policymakers, local government leaders, non-governmental organizations, and expert practitioners in the field of sustainable urban development and human settlements”. Admittedly, the evaluation established that WUF9 continued growing in size but lost content.

2. Since WUF7, the preparation and the Forum itself has opened up to a variety of constituencies, accommodating the voice of stakeholders from different backgrounds. This is in line with a rising demand for participation and responds to the General Assembly resolution 56/205 of 21 December 2001, in which it “encouraged local authorities and other Habitat Agenda partners to participate, as appropriate, in the WUF”. However, the initial preparations of WUF9 were done in New York. The WUF coordinator at the start of organizing the Ninth Session was based in that city, where the Host Country and Conference Agreement was also negotiated.

The WUF9 Concept Note was originally prepared by the Government of Malaysia and then received input from the WUF Secretariat, its different branches and regional offices. The final draft note was presented to the Committee of Permanent Representatives in October 2017 by the WUF Secretariat. Drawing heavily on the legacy of Habitat III, it was not endorsed. The final version of the document was established on 28 December 2017, less than two months before the actual Forum and with the Christmas break in-between, undermining the quality of preparation work in mobilizing event.

Working arrangements of WUF9

Leading the organization of WUF9, the WUF Secretariat’s preparation was supported by grassroots meetings and by breakfast meetings that were a legacy of Habitat III. the UN-Habitat’s branches were asked to prepare concept notes. Members of the WUF Secretariat were also stationed in the regional office to mobilize those areas. National and regional urban forums also informed the Secretariat. This involved the General Assembly of Partners, who are not affiliated with UN-Habitat. In itself, this was not wrong as, after all, the working arrangements for the first WUF were drawn from experience gained from the innovative working arrangements that were used very effectively by the second committee of the Habitat II Conference in 1996.

The WUF Secretariat organized the Forum with limited staff. It was composed of a coordinator, an assistant coordinator, four regional partnership officers, a programme management officer, and two administrative assistants. Notwithstanding


their commitment and achievements, some branches felt insufficiently involved in the Forum’s preparation and complained about a lack of transparency. Regarding transparency, the host country never received the WUF9 logframe and its indicators, which was a significant oversight.

The late mobilization of the Forum was a burden to the host country and put a lot of pressure on the event organizers, including on UN-Habitat staff. Confirmation of the events came 1½ week before the Forum. The price of air tickets and hotel booking skyrocketed. Panellists had to be identified at the last minute and they did not have time to prepare properly. For example, the Mayor of Sochi in Russia could not receive his

travel clearance in time. For some of the preferred speakers it was just too late, as they were no longer available.

Through the successive WUFs, changes have been made to the working arrangements as were set out in annex IV of the report of the First Session of the Forum in 2002, but they were never endorsed. The multi-partner Advisory Group, for example, was installed to advise and assist the UN-Habitat Executive Director with the organization, management and conduct of the meetings of that particular session of WUF. The Group’s role is now restricted to drafting the declaration. It is not clear who should organize

the Forum as the role and composition of the WUF Secretariat was never formalized.

Efficiency of the WUF9 results chainA results chain should specify the sets of connected building blocks, referred to as inputs, outputs, outcomes and impact. It clarifies how lower- and higher-level results in the value chain relate, namely how the events of WUF lead to achieving the WUF results. However, the WUF9 logframe only shows results at outcome level or expected accomplishment. As such, it sees WUF as an event and not as a transformative process. This is not aligned with the twin objectives or perception of participants. Since the events are not linked to the outcomes and the change objectives are not defined, the medium- and longer-term results cannot be measured accurately.

The Forum is the first with “dedicated logframes” for UN-Habitat subprogrammes: logframes by the regional offices and logframes by the thematic branches. The WUF9 Secretariat introduced these dedicated logframes. Data on the activities of WUF9 and pre- and post-event follow up activities and synergies with other subprogrammes needed to be entered. However, the evaluation assessed that the dedicated logframes were mostly incomplete and not all regional offices and thematic branches made their submissions.

The evaluator assessed that logframes did not serve this purpose. The basic purpose of a logframe is not a report but to establish change. Also, the designed WUF9 logframes do not

match the eventual purpose of reporting on the Agenda’s implementation. In addition, this effort was also too complex to be efficient, as logframes should be kept simple.

Impact and sustainability

WUF9 strengthened cooperation between partners and generated new partnerships with stakeholders in urban development who committed themselves to work together on specific urban issues. United Nations agencies expressed their intention of working more with UN-Habitat and each other in the pursuit of

sustainable urban development; for example, on the collection and reporting of urban related indicators. The Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations will collaborate on linking urban and rural initiatives, including other agencies such as United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization and United Nations Children’s Fund. The intention was also formulated to enhance collaboration with the private sector, including technology companies, to share innovations and advance sustainable development on a large scale.

The innovative solutions showcased during WUF9 inspired many stakeholders who said they would use this new knowledge in the workplace: They vowed to look for innovative ways to secure affordable housing; encourage innovative governance for open and inclusive cities; seeks new ways of mobility; introduce financing


mechanisms; unleash private sector innovation for public benefit; and engage community-generated data.

The evaluation revealed that the different participants and stakeholder groups attend the World Urban Forum with different expectations of what they want to take out of it. Examples of how WUF9 advanced the implementation of the New Urban Agenda and sustainable urban development in general are highlighted in the following paragraphs.

Different stakeholders, such as the non-governmental organization Despacio, set their own indicators for the Forum and evaluated their

events, which demonstrates the importance that other partners attach to results-based management. The participant impact survey demonstrated that WUF9 capacitated participants to advance sustainable urbanization. The WUF9 Bulletin Reports, which were produced during the Forum, summarized the outcomes of the different events such as commitments made and coalitions formed.33

The host countryMalaysia, determined to maximize the Forum’s impact on the country and region, had set its own indicators on what it wanted to achieve prior to the event.

The Forum changed the perception and practice in urban development in Malaysia. The New Urban Agenda and the Forum taught the country to work in an integrated way across sectors, scale levels and stakeholders to achieve results in urban development. URBANICE was created for WUF9 but continues to support the government to advance urban development in Malaysia and in the region. Together with other partners, they started initiatives to disseminate the findings of the Forum: they launched the “Malaysia 100YC Programme” among universities. They also initiated talks, including with the National Institute of Planners. The evaluator attended a meeting of the municipality of Kuala Lumpur advocating the principles of the New Urban Agenda. The city of Kuala Lumpur also organized a new “World Town Planning Day”.

33 Available at on http://enb.iisd.org34 URBANICE supported the evaluation mission in Malaysia.

WUF9 purposefully built local capacity and exposed youth to international practices. The confidence and leadership skill of the Forum’s volunteers were also enhanced. The evaluator watched how the young team from URBANICE operated with great expertise.34

URBANICE strengthened ties with line ministries, embassies and development partners for its work.

Interviews in Malaysia in the context of the evaluation found how a university professor learnt to see foreign workers as an asset rather than a problem; how Think City expanded its international advisory board network; how the Malaysian Institute of Planners now networks

with the Commonwealth Association of Planners, with ISOCARP and with the Royal Town Planning Institute of the United Kingdom; and how the city of Kuala Lumpur was setting up the KL Urban Observatory.

Malaysia invested USD 11 million in cash and kind in the Forum, and URBANICE stated during the evaluation that it calculated a financial return of approximately USD 42 million.

The profiles of Malaysia and Asia in general were raised after the Forum. URBANICE is co-organizing a Regional Urban Forum with UN-Habitat and the United Nations Economic

and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific in October 2019 in the secondary Malaysian city of Penang. Malaysia has also seen a boost in its international tourism since WUF9.

As a result of WUF9, there has been increasing emphasis on urban governance and the role of local government and local policymakers to realize the sustainable agenda. In this regard, the Malaysia Urban Forum was organized in February 2019 with UN-Habitat as a global partner. This local forum focused on strengthening partnerships, calling for new alliances and launching initiatives in the context of advancing the implementation of the New Urban Agenda and SDGs.


The New Cycling Lane initiative was part of the green mobility plan for Kuala Lumpur and it was inaugurated for WUF9. It was designed for users to travel within Kuala Lumpur with sustainable modes of transport during WUF9. The initiative has impacted Kuala Lumpur in ensuring accessible safe and clean urban mobility.

The WUF9 Village is as a showcase on how to create better urban public space for all. It is a unique space open to all featuring urban innovations and solutions. WUF9 leaves the legacy of how to create and plan cities for all.

UN-HabitatResults from the UN-Habitat staff survey

demonstrate how UN-Habitat showcased its work and its normative products to stakeholders. WUF9 showed a positive image of UN-Habitat. Individual staff will apply new initiatives and knowledge in their work. The team will especially benefit from the new contacts that members made during WUF, and will start new projects and leverage funds. The input from WUF9 into UN-Habitat’s strategic programming has not yet been determined. Many staff members called for improved monitoring and evaluation of the Forum to maximize the benefits for the organization and demonstrate its work to the world with substantial evidence.

WUF9 generated many new partnerships; at least 20 memoranda of understanding of such kind were signed with UN-Habitat at WUF9 alone. The Forum underscored UN-Habitat as the lead United Nations body for urbanization.

As a side effect, WUF9 strengthened networking and collaboration within the UN-Habitat. Headquarter staff met with colleagues in from various regions and learnt about their work. The regional presence of the WUF Secretariat and the regional mobilization was much appreciated.

WUF9 welcomed the new UN-Habitat Executive Director, who received many positive reflections and energised others with her ideas, creating more optimism in the organization.35

35 (2018), United Nations Human Settlements Programme. UN-Habitat WUF9 Staff Survey, Nairobi

Relevance and impact of the Kuala Lumpur Declaration on Cities 2030At the beginning of WUF9, the Advisory Group convened to draw up the Declaration on Cities 2030. This is the outcome document of the Forum that reflects the discussions and concerns of the partner groups. It summarizes the key urbanization challenges that were discussed, lists new ones and provides recommendations to speed up the implementation of the New Urban Agenda. For UN-Habitat senior management, the declaration is a political document and a milestone in reporting on the Agenda. It serves to strengthen the UN-Habitat’s strategic plan.

The impact survey showed approximately 70 per

cent of the respondents read the declaration, and 63 per cent found that it reflected the position of the participants. Additionally, 34 per cent found the declaration relevant and 54 per cent found it somewhat relevant.

A number of participants found the declaration important as it confirms the commitment of stakeholders to the implementation of the New Urban Agenda. Participants said they will use the document as an advocacy tool in their workplace. However, others saw it as yet another redundant document as it duplicates what already appears in the New Urban Agenda and the SDGs. Malaysia will use the declaration to share critical

takeaways of the Forum. However, the country expressed regret that the declaration did not sufficiently reflects its view. Several participants, including some high-level ones, shared Malaysia’s view. Accordingly, some high-level participants interviewed proposed a more specific and action-oriented document that records firm commitments. Interviewees found that the declaration would merit greater acceptance if it reflected more, the views of the different stakeholders, especially those of a host country.

“At the moment it sits as a random declaration from the conference and though there are great explicit links to the New Urban Agenda, the New Urban Agenda is itself full of buzzwords and difficult for the layperson to understand the framework and its interconnections with the


Figure 8 The WUF9 call for volunteers on twitter

broader UN goals. Until such time that the New Urban Agenda can increase its relevance and importance for stakeholders, particularly the connections between the SDGs and how it all works, I have very little hope that there will be broader buy-in to the New Urban Agenda and the KL Declaration beyond UN-Habitat.” Source: Respondent, WUF9 Participant Impact Survey.

Cross-cutting issues

UN-Habitat’s Gender Coordination and Support Unit together with the Programme Division organized several events such as the Woman’s Assembly, the Women’s Round Table, and an

Advisory Session on Gender Issues. As 500 people attended the events, it demonstrates great interest in gender issues. The Unit’s strength at WUF9 lay in its close cooperation with the General Assembly of Parties (GAP), which was its primary organizing partner for WUF9 events. The Unit has maintained close ties with GAP even after the Forum.

The WUF9 generated many positive results. Some of these are as follows:

• UN-Habitat’s Gender Coordination and Support Unit learnt about the innovative approach of the non-governmental

organization SafetiPin to make cities safer for women and others. SafetiPin uses apps to collect information, engage with individuals and provide back end solutions for large-scale data collection and analytics. The NGO works with governments, other NGOs,

city planners, international agencies and corporates to provide and use “safety data for change”.

• UN-Habitat’s Safer Cities Programme will work together with Plan International on the “perception of safety” and the “threat of violence” that are as restricting as violence itself.

• New new partnerships were developed and work will be initated in Latin America on ”universal design” to improve gender and youth issues. They will collaborate with HelpAge International on its imitative “Ageing, Older Persons and the 2030 Agenda for

Sustainable Development.”

GenderThe Forum was committed to ensuring gender balance by avoiding “all-male panels”’. In the Participant Impact Survey, 47 per cent of respondents were women and 55 per cent were men, which indicates an almost equal gender balance in attendance at the Forum. The composition of URBANICE was also gender-balanced, and it encouraged male and female of all ages and different communities to become volunteers. This is also demonstrated in figure 8.

Youth

The Programme Division joined the team of the Gender Coordination and Support Unit and discussed people with disabilities, the elderly, youth and indigenous people. These were among the most successful events of WUF9 as they were found to “give a voice to the people that are


usually not heard”. The events were organized working closely with the GAP. They achieved many results, such as a collaboration with Plan International and working with Latin America on Universal Design.

The Youth and Livelihood Unit organized several children and youth events that were also much appreciated by the participants, according to the Participant Impact Survey. The Unit launched the Youth in Future Saudi Cities Programme publication. The results listed were a partnership between Columbia and Saudi Arabia; engaging with youth in the frontier countries of Kenya; and the drafting a resolution to include young people in reporting on the implementation of the New

Urban Agenda.

The Forum organized dedicated events for Children and Youth, which was an innovative approach. The Forum also engaged young people into reporting on the implementation of the Agenda, an effort that resulted in a resolution.

Participants raised many different proposals to benefit urban children and youth, including strategies to ensure that youth have opportunities in non-urban areas.

Climate changeClimate change received a lot of attention at

WUF9 as it was an important theme for all the participants. Especially funding and collaboration with the private sector in the area of climate change were discussed. Partners agreed to scale up climate change adaptation measures and to focus more on implementation.

Climate action in informal settlements was highlighted because the active participation of such communities decreases the costs of climate disasters. At the same time, the communities’ involvement better integrates them into the governance structures and plans for their cities.

The need for cooperation on research and action for cities and climate change became clear during

36 Lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender

WUF9. Collaboration with the International Plant Protection Convention Scientific Conference on Cities and Climate Change was recommended among many other measures. Participants committed to collaborating with the Planners for Climate Action initiative.

Human rightsWUF9 promoted a vision for cities grounded in human rights and recognises the need to give particular attention to eliminating multiple forms of discrimination. These include discrimination against slum residents, the homeless, internally displaced persons, and migrants regardless of their migration status.

The ONE UN Room organized a session on the recognition of housing as a human right and on Sustainable Development Goals 5 and 11, which are critical drivers of the “Leave No One Behind” principle of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.

The World Urban Campaign co-hosted a side event at WUF9 bringing together judges, lawyers and magistrates to discuss principles that give content to the implementation of protocols for the administration of justice derived from the New Urban Agenda.

LGBT36rights campaigners highlighted examples

of positive actions to halt violence against youth of that community. LGBTI campaigners also presented “This is Also A Family,” which are non-stereotypical family configurations such as same-sex couples and single people with pets.

Children and youth representatives called for the active engagement of youth at all stages of decision-making in urban development and warned that engagement efforts should be genuine and not mere tokenism. They urged moving away from a growth-centred paradigm to one that is people- and planet-centred, with human rights and justice at its core.


6. Key conclusions

Conclusion 1 – Confirmation of the Forum as the world’s premier international event on urban issues.

WUF9 was a highly successful global gathering. UN-Habitat and the Government of Malaysia should be commended. Inevitably, there have been some challenges. Nearly 20,000 delegates came to Kuala Lumpur “to renew their commitment to the implementation of the New Urban Agenda as an accelerator for the achievement of the Agenda 2030 and the Sustainable Development Goals”. WUF9 had the largest attendance of all WUFs, so far.

Conclusion 2 – The Forum: an event and a change projectThe participants and stakeholder groups came from diverse backgrounds with their personal ideas about WUF and expectations of what it would offer. Ultimately, they all came to support the implementation of the urban agenda to advance sustainable urban development. Some see the Forum as an event; a happy gathering of urban thinkers from across the globe that creates synergies and introduces to them new ideas with which to advance sustainable urban development in their workplace. Others came with specific objectives such as to strengthen their capacities in promoting sustainable development. That is to

say, for example, to gain specific knowledge on technical innovations, or wanting to meet certain partners in order to extend their professional networks.

Conclusion 3 – From generic to local solutionsOn the one hand, WUF emphasizes the need to strengthen urban sustainable development strategies on the global agenda. On the other

37 One who assembles people for an official or public purpose. Available at https://en.wiktionary.org.

hand, there was an increasing demand to discuss specific issues regarding the implementation of the urban agenda at local level. Participants found the discourse on local solutions in specific countries especially inspiring with which they could proffer innovative solutions.

Conclusion 4 – A rising demand for participation and co-productionUN-Habitat as lead agency within the UN system for coordinating activities in the field of human settlement development is the convener37 and Secretariat of the WUF. However, it does not ‘own’ the Forum as the Forum belongs to all stakeholders in urban development. Partners and

constituencies clearly want to be more involved in setting the agenda and in organizing the events of the Forum.

The preferred format of the primary thematic events was speeches and panel discussions; but the formats of the sessions by the partners and constituencies were more appreciated because they were more varied and more participatory, hence in this respect UN-Habitat could learn from the partners.

Conclusion 5 – A demand for the Forum results The results chain or logframe of WUF9 was not very useful for this evaluation. The logframe did

not show how the different Forum events would lead to the expected results. There was confusion among participants about the Forum’s objectives because they were ill-defined. The logframe indicators were deemed inadequate as more than half were simple growth indicators. However, what remains clear is that participants, as well as UN-Habitat staff, specifically, want to know about the Forum results.


7. Lessons learned

Key lessons from the evaluation included a need to address the lack of clarity on the objective of the Forum; the incomplete Forum results chain; the demand for results-based management; the need for the Forum to belong to all participants; the understanding of the Forum as a universal event with different dimensions; an awareness that the goals of UN-Habitat and the Forum are not necessarily interchangeable; and a need to clarify and update the working arrangements defined in annex IV to the report of the first Forum in 2002.

1. The objective of the Forum is not clearThis created confusion among participants, who

had varied expectations that could not all be met, which in turn diverted the thematic focus during certain events. The evaluation found that the Forum was perceived by some as an event in its own right and by others as a capacity-building and change project, to bring transformational changes in the effectiveness of the Forum, including efficiency of policy instruments and strengthened ownership of stakeholders.

2. the results chain of the Forum is incompleteThe results chain in the logic framework of the Forum programme is incomplete, as only expected accomplishments are currently shown. The indicators should be better targeted, as most are still growth indicators, despite the focus of the Forum being on fostering transformative change for the achievement of sustainable urban development.

3. There is a demand for results-based managementParticipants want to be able to measure and be apprised of the results of the Forum. Some participants have started to evaluate their own events. UN-Habitat staff also want to showcase the results of the Forum and the impact of their work to partners. Future sessions of the Forum should therefore be organized to highlight the achievement of the planned objectives.

4. The Forum belongs to all the participantsThe New Urban Agenda highlights the importance of effective coordination and cooperation to achieve sustainable urban development. The evaluation revealed that stakeholders and

partners in urban development demand greater participation and increased interaction in Forum events to foster joint ownership. There is a certain fatigue with the format of speeches and panel discussions in the events directly organized by UN-Habitat.

5. The Forum is a universal event with different intended results (outcomes)According to the participant impact survey, 20 per cent of respondents found that the Forum very much enhanced their knowledge of sustainable urban development, while only 8 per cent said that they would apply the acquired knowledge in their workplace. Some interviewees were not

focused on the New Urban Agenda or even the Sustainable Development Goals. They wanted to be inspired and to change the course of urban development. They were not interested in resolutions or evidence-based policies, wishing rather to address the reality of conditions on the planet. They expected hard measures and firm commitments from all participants. The Forum has grown so large that some participants found it overwhelming due to practical, organizational and venue considerations and the abundance of events, which was sometimes confusing.

6. UN-Habitat and the Forum do not have interchangeable goalsExpected accomplishment 5 is to raise the profile of UN-Habitat. The evaluation found that the Forum had strengthened the image of UN-Habitat vis-à-vis its partners and had strengthened internal collaboration within the Programme. However, expected accomplishment 5 underplays the strong energy of participants at the Forum inspiring each other, as opposed to UN-Habitat inspiring the participants. There is a need to make a distinction between the objective of the Forum and the aspirations of UN-Habitat.

7. The working arrangements needs clarificationThe working arrangements formulated in annex IV to the report on the first Forum in 2002 have been gradually adapted in different Forums, but the changes have not been formally endorsed. That has led to ambiguities in working arrangements, roles and responsibilities and created tensions in December 2017 in the lead-up to the ninth Forum.


8. Recommendations

1. Set clear objectives of WUFUN-Habitat should set and clearly communicate the overall objective(s) of WUF in Forum documents, including the project document and concept note. In these, UN-Habitat should, for instance, clarify that the Forum is an event and a transformative project. WUF should not confuse its overall objective (or longer-term results) with its expected accomplishments (direct results from the events).

2. Remove the result “UN-Habitat’s profile raised” from the WUF results frameworkUN-Habitat should consider treating the result of

raising UN-Habitat’s profile and support strategic programming with specific focus on implementing and subsequently feeding the six-year Strategic Plan and biennial Work Programme and Budget as a side effect and not as an expected accomplishment of the Forum. UN-Habitat should consider internal team-building events separate from the main WUF, especially to strengthen collaboration and mutual synergies between head office and the regions.

3. Revise the logframe of the WUF programme 2018-2023 to ensure comprehensive WUF results chain, with outcome indicators to enable measurement of outcomes and impact

UN-Habitat should revise the Forum’s results chain and logframe by (i) clearly indicating the Forum’s overall objectives; (ii) articulating change and capacity development; (iii) fine-tuning its coordination and cooperation concept, targeting specific groups that require dedicated measures; and (iv) developing corresponding indicators. All of the Forum’s events should have their dedicated objectives and target audience and be linked to specific outcomes, including the opening and closing sessions.

UN-Habitat should develop dedicated indicators for the Forum as an event and as a capacity-building and change project. The indicators should be simple and measurable within the framework of the Forum.38

38 United Nations Human Settlements Programme (2017a). Results-Based Management Handbook

(2016b) UN-Habitat Evaluation Framework.

4. Learn from partners and change WUF event formatsUN-Habitat should reconsider its preferred format of speeches and panel discussions in the WUF events. The events should be more participatory, more varied and more interactive. Rather than organizing the events by stakeholder group, it is suggested that they be organized under urban themes. This would facilitate selecting events according to one’s interest during the Forum. It would also allow a diversity of stakeholder groups to interact. UN-Habitat should learn from the successful events organized by the constituencies and partners during WUF9. In conclusion,

UN-Habitat should open up much more towards the constituencies and partners.

UN-Habitat should introduce incentives for specific target audiences beyond the least developed countries, such as for the private sector and businesses, to participate in the Forum.

5. Develop and sustain the change, capacity-building cycleBesides the current focus on enhancing knowledge and skills, UN-Habitat should develop specific events targeting awareness raising, networking and implementation. UN-Habitat

should be even more demanding concerning the WUF and heighten the thematic focus and ambition of the UN-Habitat events.

More than seeing the Forum as an event, UN-Habitat should embrace it as a transformative process. Meaning that the organization should improve the capacity development cycle or change process of the events. This should target specific change agents and shape events accordingly. The following steps are proposed:

• Setting the capacity development or change parameters for each event, organizing more dedicated pre-WUF events, and team building with diverse partners


• Design the events according to a set of more suitable parameters, and better linked to the expected accomplishments

• Deliver the events according to the most effective method and focused on results

• Follow-up by designing continued support activities and leverage partnerships

• Monitoring and evaluation as well as improve approaches and methods

6. Focus on quality and content instead of growth

UN-Habitat should not aspire more participant

numbers, as the Forum has grown big enough to manage, but should instead concentrate on the quality and content of the events. Limiting the number of days should also be considered. Rather than being innovative, the themes should be “disruptive” and change course by promoting uncomfortable themes such as shrinkage versus growth, less anthropocentrism and more flora and fauna, restructuring the spatial galaxy, and circular urban economies.

7. Update working arrangements

UN-Habitat should revise the WUF working arrangements presented in annex IV of the report

of the 2002 Forum (annexed to this report). This is needed because UN-Habitat and urban development have changed drastically in the last 15 years. The new working arrangements and should be based on the recommendations of the successive Forums and should be discussed with partners. Moreover, the arrangements should be formally endorsed in order to energize the Forum. They should be clear and straightforward and should be commonly agreed.

The working arrangements should set clear lines with regard to the following:

• Transparency: transparency between the WUF Secretariat and the host country regarding timely sharing of information; transparency between the Secretariat and UN-Habitat in sharing information about Forum participants

• Roles and responsibilities: the role, timing, and working of the Advisory Group, the body responsible for organizing WUF; the involvement of the United Nations in New York and of the General Assembly of Partners in WUF; the role of the thematic branches and the regional offices

• Documents: the usefulness, objectives and timing of the various documents including the WUF concept note and declaration

• WUF events: their selection, specific objectives, their results chain and capacity development cycle (including pre- and post-follow-up activities), their incorporation in

WUF10

• Timing: define the timing of the concept note; and allow time for the Branches and the speakers to prepare. Consider shortening the duration of WUF

• Equal treatment of partners in organizing the Forum: Set clear roles and responsibilities for both parties equally in the Host and Country Agreement, especially since it now specifies responsibilities for the host country; make a fair analysis of assumptions and risks as WUF9 unliterally analysed risks related to the host country but not to UN-Habitat.

• Partners: Involve the United Nations in New York and the General Assembly of Partners in the WUF.

8. Articulate capacity development in the WUF results chain

UN-Habitat should articulate capacity development in the WUF results chain to enhance effective delivery of the Forum and to sharpen the focus on achieving results instead of outputs. The results chain should use a framework to measure change and capacity development at two levels namely:

At the individual or group level: • Measuring the intermediate capacity

outcomes to strengthen the WUF participants and create synergies among them


Closing ceremony photo © Jeremias Thomas for UN-Habitat

At the institutional level:• Measuring change in the institutional capacity

areas needed to strengthen institutions to reach sustainable urban development

UN-Habitat should focus on all the intermediate capacity outcomes and institutional capacity areas equally as they all work together towards attaining sustainable urban development. The evaluation revealed that some outcomes and areas are not given sufficient, or even any, attention at WUF9 events.

UN-Habitat should subdivide the EA3 on “coordination and cooperation” into three distinct results: (i) improved consensus and teamwork; (ii) strengthened coalitions; and (iii) enhanced networks. The measure is recommended as these result areas have different objectives and target groups and, therefore, need dedicated measures.

Additions to the logframe and a list of intermediate capacity outcomes and institutional capacity areas are proposed in annex 6 of this report.


1. Introduction

The Ninth Session of the World Urban Forum

(WUF9) to be held in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia took

place from 7 to 13 February 2018. The Theme of

WUF9 “Cities 2030, Cities for All: Implementing

the New Urban Agenda” – placed the Forum’s

focus on the New Urban Agenda as a tool and

accelerator for achieving the 2030 Agenda and

its Sustainable Development Goals.

WUF9 is part of the six-year World Urban Forum

Programme, which runs from 2018 to 2023.

The WUF Programme allows for medium-term

planning. It is a key catalytic vehicle for mobilizing

partnerships and networks; an advocacy and

awareness-raising platform; a knowledge

platform contributing to the implementation,

monitoring and review of the New Urban Agenda

and the urban dimensions of the Sustainable

Development Goals.

The programme integrates results-based

management with specific indicators and

short and medium-term (4 and 6 years) targets

developed to measure results of UN-Habitat

entities, branches and regional offices related to

WUF in advancing UN-Habitat’s work and strategy,

as well as contributing to the implementation,

monitoring and reporting on the implementation

of New Urban Agenda and the urban dimensions

of the Sustainable Development Goals.

The terms for reference have been developed

to assess the WUF9 impact and outcomes, as

reflected in the Governing Council resolution

26/6.

39 The evaluation will be carried out as a corporate

evaluation, conducted by the external consultant,

managed by the UN-Habitat Evaluation Unit and

guided by an Evaluation Reference Group. This

39 OP5, GC26/6. “Further requests the Executive Director, in consultation with the Committee of Permanent Representatives, to assess the impact and outcome of each session of the Forum using a results-based approach, including various evaluation tools and mechanisms”.

40 OP5, GC26/6. “Further requests the Executive Director, in consultation with the Committee of Permanent Representatives, to assess the impact and outcome of each session of the Forum using a results-based approach, including various evaluation tools and mechanisms”.

is in line with the UN-Habitat Evaluation

Policy.40

Evaluation of the World Urban Forum is in

accordance with the Regulations and Rules

Governing Programme Planning, the Programme

Aspects of the Budget, the Monitoring of

Implementation and the Methods of Evaluation

(PPBME) – ST/SGB/2016/6, specifically to

determine as systematically and objectively as

possible the relevance, efficiency, effectiveness

and impact of the organization’s activities in

relation to their objectives.

The UN-Habitat Governing Council, during its

22nd Session of April 2009, through resolution

22/10, noting the growing interest in the World

Urban Forum, requested the lessons-learnt

review of previous sessions, 2002-2008, with a

view to improving the planning, organization and

effectiveness of future sessions. The review was

carried out by an external consultant and resulted

in 19 recommendations.

Recommendation 9, on planning future World

Urban Forum sessions using a results-based

management approach, specifically requested

for expected results and success criteria to be

clearly articulated in the World Urban Forum

planning documents. The Seventh Session of the

World Urban Forum (WUF7) held in April 2014 was

the first one planned and implemented using a

results-based approach.

The Governing Council resolution 23/5 further

mandates UN-Habitat to assess the impact and

outcome of each WUF session using a results-

based approach and to incorporate that more

distinctly into the programme of work of

UN-Habitat.

Annex 1: Terms of Reference

Evaluation of the Impact and Outcomes of the Ninth Session of the World Urban Forum, 7-13 February 2018, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

Terms of Reference


The evaluation structure of World Urban Forum Programme, contains the following milestones:

Midterm Evaluation Date: December 2020

End-of-Project Evaluation Date: December 2023

The WUF Programme will be subject to an external and independent midterm and ex-post evaluation. This evaluation of WUF9 will feed into the midterm evaluation and end-programme evaluations planned for the WUF Programme. Since WUF7, the WUF programme has been using a logical framework. The independent evaluation should assess the outcomes and impact of WUF9 in relation to this logical framework, as well as other planning documents such as the

subprogrammes and regional offices WUF9 logframes.

In addition to this evaluation, external and independent midterm and end-of-project evaluation for the six-year programme, a self-assessment conducted by the World Urban Forum Secretariat in collaboration with the host country will start immediately before the holding of an edition of the World Urban Forum. The self-assessment process will continue all through the conference implementation, during which the evaluation team will undertake observations, participants’ views as well as surveys. The self-evaluation report will be available for the use of

the external evaluator.

2. Background and contextThe United Nations Human Settlements Programme (UN-Habitat) is the lead United Nations body for cities and human settlements. The UN-Habitat was established as the United Nations Centre for Human Settlements (UNCHS), through the United Nations General Assembly Resolution 32/162 of December 1977, following the first global Conference of United Nations on Human Settlements that was held in Vancouver, Canada, in 1976.

41 The United Nations General Assembly decided, in its resolution 56/206 (2001), that the Forum would be a “non-legislative technical forum in which experts can exchange views in the years when the Governing Council of the United Nations Human Settlements Programme does not meet.” At the same session, the General Assembly, in paragraph 7 of its resolution 56/205, encouraged “…local authorities and other Habitat Agenda partners” to participate, as appropriate, in the World Urban Forum in its role as an advisory body to the Executive Director of UN-Habitat.

United Nations General Assembly Resolution A/RES/56/206 strengthened the mandate and status of UNCHS, and the Centre was transformed to the United Nations Human Settlements Programme. Through the same resolution 56/206, the World Urban Forum was established as a non-legislative technical gathering in which experts could exchange views in the years when the Governing Council do not meet. Earlier, through resolution 18/5 of 16 February 2001, the Governing Council had requested the UN-Habitat Executive Director to promote a merger of the Urban Environment Forum and the International Forum on Urban Poverty into a new urban forum, with a view to strengthening the coordination of international support to the implementation of the

Habitat Agenda.

The Forum is an open and inclusive gathering that brings together participants from all over the world. They represent governments at national, regional and local levels, academia, civil society organizations, and parliamentarians. The participants also represent foundations, professionals, women and youth groups, and the private sector as partners working for better cities, as well as United Nations agencies, intergovernmental organizations and the media.41

The United Nations General Assembly in its resolution 69/226 recognizes the World Urban

Forum as the foremost global arena for interaction among policymakers, local government leaders, non-governmental organizations and expert practitioners in the field of sustainable urban development and human settlements.

In paragraph 167 of the New Urban Agenda, adopted at the United Nations Conference on Housing and Sustainable Urban Development (Habitat III) in October 2016, participating States requested the report of the implementation of the Agenda to incorporate, to the extent possible, the inputs of multilateral organizations and processes where appropriate, civil society, the private sector


and academia and to build on existing platforms and processes such as the World Urban Forum convened by UN-Habitat.

2.1 Evaluation of WUF9 impact and outcomesWUF9 is the first of three WUFs planned in the WUF project document covering the period from 2018 to 2023. The host of the WUF9 is the Government of Malaysia and the city of Kuala Lumpur. It will take place from 7 to 13 February 2018. The Theme of WUF9 “Cities 2030, Cities for All: Implementing the New Urban Agenda” – places the Forum’s focus on the New Urban Agenda as a tool and accelerator for achieving the 2030 Agenda and its Sustainable Development Goals.

The five main expected accomplishments (EA) of the Forum are provided below:

EA 1: Awareness is raised on sustainable urban development among stakeholders and constituencies, including the public.

EA 2: Collective knowledge on sustainable urban development is improved through inclusive open debates, sharing of lessons learnt and the exchange of urban solutions, good practices and policies.

EA 3: Coordination and cooperation is increased

within the United Nations system and with different stakeholders and constituencies for an effective implementation of the New Urban Agenda.

EA 4: Substantive and strategic inputs from multilateral organizations, national and subnational governments and stakeholders, are provided into the reporting of the implementation of the New Urban Agenda (in line with Op. 167 of the New Urban Agenda).

EA 5: UN-Habitat profile is raised, and strategic programming supported with specific focus on implementing and subsequently feed the six years Strategic Plan and biennial Work Programme and Budget.

The WUF Programme logical framework contains key indicators to measure achievement of expected accomplishments. In addition to

the WUF Programme logical framework to further assess outcomes, and as part of the programme implementation to increase its impact, logical frameworks for the seven UN-Habitat subprogrammes and regional strategies with WUF-specific expected accomplishments and indicators of achievement as well as proposed medium-term impact measurements have been developed by the WUF Secretariat in collaboration with the UN-Habitat branches and regional offices.

2.2 UN-Habitat’s implementation approach to WUFThe Governing Council, through resolution GC26/6 gave directives on how WUF9 and future

sessions of WUF should be implemented. The resolution requested the Executive Director to improve and define a timely planning process, identifying focused objectives and measurable indicators of success, designing conducive event formats and strengthening reporting mechanisms to enable the effective collection of the substantive outcomes of sessions of the Forum. It further requested appropriate coordination within the UN-Habitat subprogrammes and with the regional offices and through the interdivisional support mechanism of the agency to ensure the success of the sessions of the Forum.

The same resolution requested the Executive

Director to promote the engagement of all relevant stakeholders towards the implementation of the New Urban Agenda in collaboration with the host city of each session of the Forum.

The logical framework of WUF project document, as part of the results-based approach, has specific indicators as well as short- and medium-term (4/6 years) targets. These will be worked out to measure results of subprogrammes and regional strategies related to WUF9, and in advancing both the UN-Habitat work and strategy, and impacts in the implementation of the New Urban Agenda and the urban dimension of the Sustainable Development Goals.

Partnerships and networking together with resource mobilization are key components of the programme, as well as a strengthened and innovative capacity-building dimension.


The purpose of the WUF Programme is to contribute to the advancement of the coordinated implementation of the New Urban Agenda; to ensure that sustainable urban development is increasingly incorporated in the political and media global agenda; and to ensure that knowledge and awareness are created at all level, including the general public. In particular, the programme, while addressing the overall issue related to rapid urbanization with its challenges and opportunities, seeks to contribute to bridge the existing gaps on the following:

• Lack of legitimated, fully inclusive global platforms within the UN system for exchange of experience and knowledge on sustainable

urbanization

• Poor sectorial integration, coordination and cooperation among different constituencies dealing with sustainable urban development related subjects, which may hamper an effective implementation of the New Urban Agenda

• Insufficient advocacy and awareness on sustainable urbanization, which if improved could be the key to include the item in the global political and media agenda

• Need to create a strong platform that will

substantively feed in the follow-up and review process of the New Urban Agenda

• Need to raise the profile of UN-Habitat as a focal point for the United Nations system in implementing the New Urban Agenda in an integrated and collaborative way

In addition, the WUF Programme seeks to contribute to raising the profile of UN-Habitat as a leading agency regarding urbanization, along with the consolidation of its knowledge base and the incorporation of the conference outcomes in the strategies and work of the agency from the normative to the operation level.

Other key specific elements guiding the WUF programme are:

• Coherent programme of the event based on thematic threads

• Results-oriented sessions with formats conducive to draw conclusions and produce relevant outcomes

• Highly qualitative speakers’ panels ensuring geographic, partners’ category, age and gender balance

• Strong mobilization at the global, regional and country levels using outposted staff and offices along with other available tools

• Strategic linkage with the New Urban Agenda and the Sustainable Development Goals, mainstreaming them in all substantive debates

• Expanded participation and inclusiveness (including remote participation) using live streaming social media and other available tools

• Innovations introduced at all levels, as long as they are suitable to a better achievement of objectives

A final substantive report will be prepared by the WUF Secretariat after every session of the World Urban Forum to be published and officially presented during the subsequent session of the UN-Habitat Governing Council.

3. Purpose of the evaluationThe main purpose of this evaluation is to assess impact and outcomes of the ninth session of the World Urban Forum not only after the event but within a reasonable time (one year) in which the impact and outcomes could be fully measurable.

The key users of the evaluation are UN-Habitat management and staff; the governing bodies, donors, partners, experts in the field of urban development, policymakers and other key stakeholders. The assessment will be based on evaluation criteria of relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, sustainability and impact. The evaluation will identify impact, outcomes, achievements, lessons, challenges and opportunities for the World Urban Forum. The evaluation is expected to be instrumental in providing recommendations for the effective implementation of the WUF Programme.


4. Objectives of the evaluationThe objectives of the evaluation are to assess the impact and outcomes of WUF9, including the achievement of expected accomplishments and performance; promote learning, feedback and knowledge sharing.

4.1 Key Evaluation QuestionsThe evaluation will focus on the following sets of key questions, which may be expanded by the Evaluation Team as deemed appropriate:

• How was the WUF9 linked to the implementation of the UN-Habitat work programme, its Strategic Framework 2014-2019, the New Urban Agenda and the 2030

Agenda?

• To what extent was the WUF9 programme linked to the WUF9 theme and relevant for the targeted audiences?

• In what ways do the WUF9 outcomes contribute to relevant UN-Habitat strategies, and work effectiveness of UN-Habitat with focus on the Work Programme, budget and subprogrammes?

• To what extent do the WUF9 outcomes contribute to improving collective knowledge on sustainable urbanization? And to the

implementation of the New Urban Agenda and the achievement of the 2030 Agenda?

• To what extent do the WUF9 outcomes directly contribute to increasing the level of coordination and cooperation within and between stakeholder groups? What are the most innovative and effective approaches or formats used?

• How do the WUF9 outcomes contribute to raising awareness on sustainable urbanization among stakeholders and constituencies and the general public?

• How do the WUF9 outcomes contribute to the reporting on the New Urban Agenda by gathering substantive and strategic inputs from multilateral organizations, national and subnational governments and stakeholders?

• How do the WUF9 outcomes impact the preparations of the UN-Habitat Strategic Framework 2020–2025? How effective is it in providing inputs to the UN-Habitat governing bodies?

5. Scope of the evaluationThe evaluation is expected to assess impact and outcomes of WUF9. The evaluation analysis will be based on the expected accomplishments identified in the logical framework for WUF, as well as the logical frameworks for subprogrammes and regional offices, as well as other tools for measuring medium-term impact. The evaluation period will end one year after the celebration of WUF9 to properly capture its impact.

6. Evaluation approach and methodologyThe evaluation approach will be a result-based approach (Programme Theory Evaluation), using the Programme logical framework and WUF related subprogrammes and regional offices logframes, as well as other evaluation tools to properly measure outcomes and impact. Further, the evaluation will be inclusive, participatory and highly consultative with partners and stakeholders. It will be conducted in a transparent way as an external and independent evaluation in line with the Norms and Standards for Evaluation in the United Nations system and the UN-Habitat Evaluation Policy.

The evaluation will be conducted in phases.

Document Review Phase. This phase will include a review of policy documents relating to WUF, its project document, logical framework, subprogramnmes and regional logframes, concept note, as well as reports of previous WUFs. It will also include the review of WUF9 events’ reports and UN-Habitat main session reports, as well as other reports, including from the host country.

Data Collection Phase. After the period of six months, nine months after the WUF9, several participant surveys (i.e., questionnaire to be administered in three languages) will be conducted to assess impact and outcomes of the WUF9. The evaluator will map key informants for interviews whose roles could support the evaluation of the impact of WUF in the


implementation of the New Urban Agenda or in the key WUF objectives. In addition, follow-up interviews will be conducted.

Draft inception reportA draft inception will be shared with the Evaluation Reference Group members for review, comments and addressing factual errors.

Follow-up and draft reportA post –survey and follow-up interviews will be conducted, between the month tenth and eleventh after the WUF9 to share with external partners and stakeholders the draft findings on the impact and outcomes of the Forum. The draft report will be shared with the evaluation

reference group.

Methods to be usedA variety of methods will be applied to collect information as outlined below:

• Review of relevant documents to be provided by the WUF Secretariat; including project logical framework, resolutions on WUF, WUF9 documentation, website and previous WUF reports

• Interviews with external participants using semi-structured interviews and focused group discussions (a transparent criterion will be used for the selection of the interviews)

• Interviews with UN-Habitat entities, branches and regional offices

• Several participants’ surveys will be administered with the aim of identifying results of WUF942

• Interviews with national and subnational stakeholders

• If considered by the evaluator, interviews with members of the host country organizing committee as well as United Nations’ staff members such as those of the WUF Secretariat, or others.

42 A Survey to be administered to all participants registered in the WUF9 registration database. Survey software should ensure only one response per registrant. The post-WUF9 survey shall be open for three weeks, with reminders sent out before the response deadline.

7. Evaluation criteria to be appliedRelevanceThe evaluation will assess whether the WUF9 programme’s impact and outcomes are consistent with global sustainable urbanization issues and needs.

It will assess how well the WUF9 outcomes are aligned with UN-Habitat’s Strategic Plan 2014-2019 and Programme of Work 2018-2019 and the expected accomplishment of focus areas.

EffectivenessThe evaluation will assess whether the WUF9 outcomes achieved its intended expected accomplishments.

EfficiencyThe evaluation will assess the cost-effectiveness and timeliness. It will describe any cost- or time-saving innovative measures put in place to achieving WUF9 programme results.

SustainabilitySustainability is understood as the probability of continued long-term WUF9 programme derived results and impacts.

ImpactThis will be an assessment of the likelihood of WUF9 impact.

Cross-cutting issuesThe evaluation will first determine if the integration of cross-cutting issues (gender equality, human rights, youth and climate change) can be evaluated or not (evaluability) and then make use of evaluation indicators, data collection methods and tools to collect gender related data and analyse that data.

Other criteria to be considered will include attribution, innovation and catalytic role.


8. Stakeholder involvementOne of the key determinants of evaluation utilization is the extent to which stakeholders are meaningfully involved in the evaluation process. It is expected that this evaluation will be participatory, involving external stakeholders, partners, beneficiaries of WUF9, Committee of Permanent Representatives, donors and other interested parties. Some key stakeholders, including those stakeholders involved in the implementation and users/recipients/beneficiaries will participate through interviews, questionnaires or focus group discussions. The extent to which different stakeholder groups should participate will be discussed with the evaluator given implications of costs, timing and other practical

aspects, such scope of data collection and analysis.

Stakeholders will be kept informed of the evaluation processes including design, information collection, and evaluation reporting and results dissemination to create a positive attitude for the evaluation and enhance utilization. Some will be involved in providing information through interviews and surveys.

The evaluation will target all groups of participants, including organizers, participants, and donors.

Key participants’ stakeholder groups include:

• Local authorities, regional/local governments and municipalities: mayors, representatives of local authority councils, townships, prefectures and provinces

• Civil society organizations: representatives of women’s organizations, youth organizations, social and peoples’ movements, indigenous peoples’ organizations, trade unions, faith-based organizations, professional associations and foundations

• National governments: heads of state, heads of government, representatives of governments, diplomats

• Parliamentarians• Professionals• Private Sector• Foundations and international financial

institutions• United Nations agencies

• Other international organizations• Universities and research institutions:

academics, researchers, research assistants and librarians

• Media

9. Management and conduct of the evaluationThe evaluation has been mandated by the Governing Council. The Evaluation Unit of UN-Habitat will manage and provide support to the evaluation process, ensuring that the evaluation is contracted to a suitable candidate; providing advice on methodology and code of conduct of evaluation; providing technical support as required; ensuring that contractual requirements are met; and approving all

deliverables (evaluation workplan, draft and final evaluation reports). The WUF Secretariat will be responsible for providing information, documentation required as well as coordination with relevant WUF stakeholders for provision of evaluation information. The WUF Secretariat will promote the evaluation during WUF9, informing participants and other target groups of the purpose of the evaluation and to encourage them to complete WUF surveys and participate in interviews.

Evaluation reference group will be established to oversee the evaluation processes with members from WUF Secretariat, Evaluation

Unit, Division of Management and Operations, Programme Division, External Relations Division and one United Nations representative from the Department of Management with experience on evaluations. Its role is to guide the evaluation process and ensure quality of process and outputs of the evaluation. The group will endorse the terms of reference, inception report, and draft evaluation reports. The evaluation will be supported by the WUF9 Secretariat in terms of evaluation budget and provision of required information.

An experienced evaluation consultant will be hired to conduct the evaluation. The consultant be knowledgeable of UN-Habitat’s global mandate and its operations. He/she should have proven expertise in facilitating different types of consultative and evaluative group discussions. Additional resources to support the consultant in data collection and interviews will be required.


10. Qualifications of the consultantEducationAdvanced academic degree in economics, sociology statistics, urban planning, project management, or other related study areas.

Work ExperienceMinimum of 10 years of proven evaluation experience. Knowledge and understanding of United Nations and UN-Habitat’s role in promoting sustainable urbanization and human settlements issues in general. Experience in delivery of advocacy and global outreach through programmes and experience in results-based management.

LanguageFluency as well as excellent writing skills in English is required; working knowledge of other United Nations official languages is an advantage.

11. Work scheduleThe evaluation will be conducted over two paid months spread over a period of nine months from April to December 2018. The evaluator is expected to prepare a detailed workplan that will operationalize the evaluation. The provisional time table as follows.

12. DeliverablesThe three primary deliverables for this evaluation

are expected from consultants:

• Inception report. The evaluator will prepare an evaluation inception report to operationalize and direct the evaluation. The

workplan will include interview protocols and questionnaires. The workplan will outline how the evaluation will be carried out. Once approved by the Reference Group, it will become the key management document for the evaluation, guiding evaluation delivery in accordance with UN-Habitat’s expectations throughout the performance of contract.

• Draft evaluation reports. The evaluator will prepare evaluation report draft(s) to be reviewed by the Reference Group. The draft should follow UN-Habitat’s standard format for evaluation reports (Annex II: Requirements for UN-Habitat Evaluation Reports). The drafts may be more than one, until a draft is

approved to have met the basic requirements of UN-Habitat reports.

• Final evaluation report (including Executive Summary and Annexes) prepared in English and following the UN-Habitat’s standard format of evaluation report. The report should not exceed 50 pages (excluding executive summary). In general, the report should be technically easy to comprehend for non-specialists.

13. ResourcesThe consultants will be paid an evaluation fee based on the level of expertise and experience.

Daily subsistence allowance will be paid only when travelling on mission outside official duty stations of the consultant. All travel costs will be covered by UN-Habitat.


Annex 2: Working arrangements of the World Urban Forum

Source: UN-Habitat (2003), Report of the First Session of the World Urban Forum, Nairobi, 29 April–3 May 2002.

Annex IV

OBJECTIVES OF AND ARRANGEMENTS FOR THE WORLD URBAN FORUM

I. INTRODUCTION1. The World Urban Forum is being convened

pursuant to operative paragraph 10 of resolution 18/5 of the Commission on Human Settlements in which the Commission requested the Executive Director “to promote a merger of the Urban Environment Forum and the International Forum on Urban

Poverty into a new urban forum, with a view to strengthening the coordination of international support to the implementation of the Habitat Agenda.” Subsequently, the United Nations General Assembly decided, in its resolution 56/206, that the Forum would be a “non-legislative technical forum in which experts can exchange views in the years when the Governing Council of the United Nations Human Settlements Programme does not meet.” At the same session, the General Assembly, in paragraph 7 of its resolution 56/205, encouraged local authorities and other Habitat Agenda partners to participate, as appropriate, in the World Urban Forum in

its role as an advisory body to the Executive Director of UN-Habitat.

II. OBJECTIVES OF THE WORLD URBAN FORUM2. Building on the very valuable experience

of the Urban Environment Forum and the International Forum on Urban Poverty, the unified World Urban Forum will have international cooperation in shelter and urban development as its substantive focus. Accordingly, the meetings of the World Urban Forum will facilitate the exchange of experiences and the advancement of collective knowledge among cities and their development partners. The meetings of the World Urban Forum will also place strong emphasis on the participation of Habitat Agenda partners and relevant international programmes, funds and agencies, thus ensuring their inclusion in the identification

of new issues, the sharing of lessons learnt and the exchange of best practices and good policies. Another function of the World Urban Forum will be the furthering of cooperation and coordination among development agencies in the implementation of the Habitat Agenda, the Declaration on Cities and other Human Settlements in the New

Millennium and the United Nations Millennium Declaration. The report of the World Urban Forum will be presented to the Executive Director of UN-Habitat for consideration and appropriate action, including transmittal to the biennial sessions of the Governing Council of the United Nations Human Settlements Programme.

III. PARTICIPATION3. Participation in the World Urban Forum

will be open to representatives of national governments, local authorities and other Habitat Agenda partners. The latter include, inter alia, global parliamentarians on Habitat,

non-governmental organizations, community-based organizations, human settlement professionals, research institutions and academies of science, the private, business and non-profit sectors, foundations, relevant United Nations organizations and other international agencies.

IV. WORKING ARRANGEMENTS FOR THE WORLD URBAN FORUM4. A review of operative paragraph 10 of

resolution 18/5 of the Commission on Human Settlements, of paragraph 3 of section I. B of General Assembly resolution 56/206, of paragraph 7 of General Assembly resolution 56/205, and of the above-mentioned objectives and participation at the World Urban Forum indicates that the Forum is clearly not meant to be an intergovernmental meeting and, consequently, the use of rules of procedure such as those of the Governing


Council of UN-Habitat would be inappropriate. The use of those rules would limit the full and effective participation of the Habitat Agenda partners in the deliberations and recommendations of the Forum. Additionally, since both the Urban Environment Forum and the International Forum on Urban Poverty did not have formal rules of procedure, the World Urban Forum does not need to have formal rules of procedure. Simple working arrangement would facilitate maximum participation of the Habitat Agenda partners in the deliberations and recommendations of the Forum.

5. The working arrangements for the World

Urban Forum draw from experience gained from the innovative working arrangements that were used very effectively and successfully by the second 48 committee of the Habitat II Conference (Istanbul, Turkey, 3–14 June 1996) and subsequently revived for the dialogues among governments, local authorities and other Habitat Agenda partners held during the seventeenth and eighteenth sessions of the Commission on Human Settlements (Nairobi, 5–14 May 1999 and 5–9 February 2001, respectively) and also successfully used in the thematic committee of the special session of the General Assembly for an overall review and appraisal of the implementation of the outcome of the United Nations Conference on Human Settlements (Habitat II) (New York, 6–8 June 2001).

6. In essence, the main discussions of the Forum will be conducted in the form of dialogues among all participants. Towards this end, selected panellists would introduce and make short substantive presentations on specific issues followed by discussions among all participants on those specific issues.

7. At the end of each dialogue session, the Chair of each session, drawing from the deliberations, would prepare a summary of the main issues and observations raised during the presentations and discussions. These dialogue summaries should be as inclusive as possible. Once endorsed by the

plenary as an accurate reflection of what transpired in the dialogues, these dialogue summaries would be part of the report to be submitted by the Chair of the Forum to the Executive Director of UN-Habitat for consideration and appropriate action, including transmittal to the biennial sessions of the Governing Council of the United Nations Human Settlements Programme.

V. WORKING GROUPS8. For issues that require more analysis or

in-depth discussions, the plenary would, as appropriate, establish working groups or subgroups to discuss those issues and then report back to the plenary.

VI. ADVISORY GROUP9. Prior to each session, the Executive Director

of UN-Habitat will establish a multi-partner advisory group that will advise and assist the Executive Director with the organization, management and conduct of the meetings of that particular session of the World Urban Forum. The Chair of the advisory group will also serve as the Chair of that session of the World Urban Forum.

VII. OTHER WORKING ARRANGEMENTS

Date and venue10. The World Urban Forum will meet in the years

when the Governing Council of UN-Habitat is not meeting and at a date and venue to be proposed by the secretariat in consultation with national governments, local authorities and other Habitat Agenda partners.

Provisional agenda11. The provisional agenda for each session of

the World Urban Forum will be prepared by the secretariat in consultation with national governments, local authorities and other Habitat Agenda partners, at least six months in advance of the session.

Languages12. English will be the language of the World

Urban Forum. Other languages may be added, subject to the availability of extra-budgetary resources for that purpose.


Secretariat13. The United Nations Human Settlements

Programme UN-Habitat) will serve as the convenor and secretariat of the World Urban Forum. It will organize the dialogue sessions in consultation with Governments, local authorities and other Habitat Agenda partners, taking into account, as far as practicable, the need for geographical, partner and gender balances. It will also be

responsible for 49 supporting the Chair in the preparation of the report of each session. It may delegate the organization of particular dialogue sessions to specific partners.

Revision of the working arrangements14. These working arrangements may be revised

at any session of the World Urban Forum on the basis of experience gathered at preceding sessions of the World Urban Forum.


Annex 3: List of persons interviewed

UN-Habitat

ABDULLAHI Sharmaake, Youth and Livelihood Unit, Urban Economy Branch

ACIOLY Claudio, Head Capacity Development Unit, Research and Capacity Development Branch

AUBREY Dyfed, WUF Coordinator, Programme Division (Inter-Regional Adviser)

BARUGAHARE Martin, Chief, Evaluation Unit

BECH Susanne, Evaluation Officer, Evaluation Unit

CHITI Roi, Substantive Programme Coordinator, WUF Secretariat, External Relations Division

COX Andrew, Director of the Office of Management

DZIKUS Andre, Branch Coordinator, Urban Basic Services Branch

FLECK Lennart, Associate Expert, Local Economic Development Unit, Urban Economy Branch

KACYIRA Aisa Kirabo, Deputy Executive Director

KULIKAUSKAS Paulius, Chief (Ag), Office for Europe and European Institutions

MORENO Ana, Spokesperson & Chief Advocacy, Outreach and Communications

MORENO Eduardo, Branch Coordinator, Research and Capacity Development Branch

MUSISI Christine, Director, External Relations Division

MWAI Angela, Unit Leader Gender Coordination and Support Unit, Programme Division

N’DOW Saidou, Chief Legal Officer, Legal Office

NARANG-SURI Shipra, Branch Coordinator, Urban Planning and Design Branch

NYAKAIRU Jane, OIC Donor Relations and Income, Management and Operations Division

OGAWA Kazumi, Head of the Office of the Executive Director

SOMMER Kerstin, Branch Coordinator, Housing and Slum Upgrading Branch

SYLLA Oumar, Branch Coordinator, Urban Legislation, Land and Governance Branch

STORDAL Lars, Regional Partnerships and Monitoring Officer (Asia-Pacific), member of WUF Secretariat

THOMAS David, Consultant Cross-cutting Issues, Programme Division

TUTS Raf, Director, Programme Division

WELIWITA Ananda, Human Settlements Officer, Local Economic Unit, Urban Economy Branch

MENSAH Chris, Chief, External Relations and Inter-Agency Affairs and Secretary to the Governing Council

MALAYSIA

AHMAD Faizah Dr, honourable professor University Malaya, Malaysia

BINTI ABD JALIL Fauziah, Deputy Director Communications & Promotions, URBANICE Malaysia (in Kuala Lumpur)

HAFIZI MOHAMED ADAM Ahmad, Research Analyst II, at the Malaysian Industry-Government Group for High Technology (MiGHT) (in Cyberjaya)

HASHIM Norliza, Chief Executive of URBANICE Malaysia, Company Limited by Guarantee under The Ministry of Housing & Local Government

KASBANI Asfaazam, Assistant Resident Representative, UNDP in Putrajaya


KHOR Neil Dr, Programme Director Southern Region at Think City, a Malaysian organization specializing in community-based urban regeneration

LING TAN Mei, Programme Officer, World Bank, Kuala Lumpur

MD YUSSOFF Farabi, Responsible Person for International Partnerships & Projects, URBANICE Malaysia (in Kuala Lumpur)

MENTEK Mohammad, Secretary General Ministry of Housing and Local Government, Ministry of Housing and Local Government (in Putrajaya)

NIK MOHAMAD Nik Mastura Diyana Binti, Deputy Director, City Planning Department, Kuala Lumpur City Hall

NIK MOHAMMED Nik Mastura Diyana, Kuala Lumpur City Hall in Kuala Lumpur

PRIESNER Stefen, United Nations Resident Coordinator for Malaysia, UNDP in Putrajaya

QUAHARUDDIN ABDULLAH Mond IR, Program Director, at the Malaysian Industry-Government Group for High Technology (MiGHT) (in Cyberjaya)

SAIFULLIZAN RAHIM Tengku, Program Director, at the Malaysian Industry-Government Group for High Technology (MiGHT) (in Cyberjaya)

SALUDIN Noraida, Member of the Executive Council of the Malaysian Institute of Planners, Malaysia

Belgium

GRONVALD Lars, Head of Section – Cities with DEVCO/C5 –Cities, Local Authorities, Digitalisation, Infrastructures (European Commission’s Directorate-General for International cooperation and Development) Representative of Development Corporation at European Union

SCHEERS Joris, Visiting Professor at KU Leuven, President the European Council of Spatial Planners (ECTP-CEU) and Senior Policy Advisor Inter-Federal Relations at Flanders Government

VAN DEN BROECK Leo, Flemish Government Architect (Belgium)

Other

LIEBERMANN Martina, Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ)

SCHWARZ Marie-Sophie, Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ)

KATHMANN Lisa, Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ)

GUENTHER Daniel, Senior Policy Officer Div. 412 Water; Urban Development; Mobility, Bundesministerium für wirtschaftliche Zusammenarbeit for CPR

DE SMET Pascal, Brussels Minister van Mobility & Public Works, Secretary-General of Municipalities in the Region, Belgium

ALLEGAERT Thomas, Adjunct Kabinetchef Vlaamse Gemeenschapscommissie, Belgium

DANDO Lori, Permanent Representative for the US in CPR

GAROFALI Alejandro, Ambassador of Uruguay and Permanent Representative in CPR


Annex 4: WUF9 income and expenditure for UN-Habitat as of February 2019

Description Released BudgetUSD

Total CommittedUSD

Available budgetUSD

Contract-Service 41 500.00 53 898.26 12 398.26

Equip-Veh-Furnit 20 000.00 3 327.93 16 672.07

Oper-Other-Costs 205 955.94 239 107.42 33 151.48

Staff-Personnel 1 695 699.42 1 526 742.29 168 957.13

Travel 1 701 483.42 1 794 008.69 92 525.27

Psc-Exp-UN 335 361.22 334 027.11 1 334.11

Total 4 000 000.00 3 951 111.70 48 888.30

Malaysian government - cash transfer 4 000 000

Malaysian government - local expenses 2 000 000

TOTAL 6 000 000


Annex 5: Bibliography

CPR from the African Group (2017 October 30), Statement by the African Group during the 58 Meeting of the Subcommittee on Policy and Programme of Work of the CPR, Monday, 30 October 2017.

Host Country and Conference Agreement between the United Nations and the Government of Malaysia on the Hosting of the Ninth World Urban Forum in 2018 in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.

Resolutions 2001: GC18/5 (merger two forums into WUF) 2001: GA resolution A/RES/56/205 (WUF affirmation) 2001: GA resolution A/RES/56/206 (WUF affirmation) 2009: GC resolution 22/10 (divers) 2011: GC resolution 23/5 (divers) 2016: GC resolution 71/256 (On New Urban Agenda; also indicating the role of the WUF) 2017: GC resolution 26/6 (divers)

United Nations Human Settlements Programme (2003). Report of the First Session of the World Urban Forum, Nairobi, 29 April–3 May 2002.

(2012a). Training for Better Cities.

(2012b). Training Needs Assessment and Training Outcome Evaluation in an Urban Context.

(2013c). Evaluation Policy.

(2016e). “Capacity-building and Knowledge form the Foundation of the New Agenda: A Position Paper”.

(2009f). Review of the World Urban Forum Sessions 2002–2008, Lessons learned from Sessions of Nairobi, Barcelona, Vancouver and Nanj.

(2010g). Evaluation of the Fifth Session of the World Urban Forum Rio de Janeiro, Brazil 22–26 March 2010.

(2013h), Evaluation of the Sixth Session of the Word Urban Forum Naples, Italy 1–7 September 2012.

(2016i), Evaluation of the Seventh Session of the World Urban Forum Medellin, Colombia 5–11 April 2014.

(2017j), Governing Council, resolution 26/6 World Urban Forum.

(2017k), Ninth Session of the World Urban Forum, CPR Subcommittee, Nairobi, June 2017.

(2017l), Results-Based Management Handbook including the revised UN-Habitat Evaluation Framework (2016).

(2017m), WUF9 Concept Paper, “Cities 2030, Cities for All: Implementing the New Urban Agenda.”

(2017n), WUF9 Expected Accomplishments.

(2017o), WUF9 Project Document.

(2017p), WUF9, Kuala Lumpur Declaration on Cities 2030.

URBANICE Malaysia, Ministry of Urban Well-being, Housing and Local Government (2018), the Ninth Session of the World Urban Forum (WUF9), Substantive and Thematic Report.

World Bank (2014). Outcome-Based Learning, Field Guide. (Washington D.C.)

World Bank Institute (2009a). The Capacity Development Results Framework: A Strategic and Results-Oriented Approach to Learning for Capacity Development. (Washington D.C.)

World Bank Institute (2012b). Guide to Evaluating Capacity Development Results. (Washington D.C.)


Annex 6: WUF9 evaluation framework

The following intermediate capacity outcomes and institutional capacity areas are proposed43:

Intermediate Capacity Outcomes – Expected Accomplishments:

ICO1: Raised awareness (Understanding, attitude, confidence, or motivation)

ICO2: Enhanced knowledge or skills (Acquisition or application of new knowledge and skills)

ICO3: Improved consensus and teamwork (collaboration within a group of people tied by a common task)

ICO4: Strengthened coalitions (collaboration between individuals or groups with diverse objectives to advance a common agenda)

ICO5: Enhanced networks (collaboration between individuals or groups with a common interest but not a formal common agenda for action)

ICO6: New implementation know-how (strengthened disposition or ability to act, arising from formulation or implementation of policies, strategies, or plans)

Institutional Capacity Areas – Project Objectives:

Strength of stakeholder ownership (level of priority attached to the development objectives: commitment of social and political leaders; stakeholder participation in setting priorities; transparency of information, etc)

Efficiency of policy instruments (policy instruments guiding pursuit of the development objective: clarity in defining rights and responsibilities; consistency; legitimacy; incentives for compliance; ease of administration; risk for negative externalities; suitable flexibility, etc)

Effectiveness of organizational arrangements (performance in achievement of the development objective: clarity of mission, operational efficiency, achievement of outcomes, communications and stakeholder relations, etc)

43 World Bank Institute (2009a), The Capacity Development Results Framework: A Strategic and Results-Oriented Approach to Learning for Capacity Development. (Washington D.C. 2009)

(2012b), Guide to Evaluating Capacity Development Results.


INPU

TAC

TIVI

TYO

UTP

UT

OU

TCO

ME

or E

AsIM

PACT

(Res

ourc

es)

(WU

F9 E

vent

s)(D

eliv

ery

of th

e W

UF9

)(R

esul

ts o

r; e

ffec

ts o

f out

puts

)(O

bjec

tives

; pur

pose

; lo

ng-t

erm

eff

ects

)

Chan

ge P

roce

ssIn

term

edia

te C

apac

ity O

utco

mes

Inte

rmed

iate

Cha

nge

Obj

ectiv

es>

> >

> >

>>

> >

> >

>>

> >

> >

>Co

ntex

t: U

N-H

abita

t’s

• G

loba

l man

date

• St

rate

gy, a

ppro

ache

s•

Look

s in

to n

ew w

ays

to

impl

emen

t New

Urb

an A

gend

a•

GC

res

olut

ions

Hig

h-le

vel r

ound

tabl

esD

ialo

gues

Ass

embl

ies

Spec

ial s

essi

ons

Stak

ehol

ders

’ rou

ndta

bles

UN

-Hab

itat i

n ac

tion

room

Del

iber

atio

n pe

rfor

med

Qua

ntity

and

qua

lity

of s

essi

ons

Scal

e an

d in

clus

iven

ess

Med

ia a

nd o

utre

ach

Rais

ed a

war

enes

sEA

1: A

war

enes

s is

rai

sed

on

sust

aina

ble

urba

n de

velo

pmen

tEA

5: U

N-H

abita

t’s p

rofil

e is

rai

sed

Decision Makers - Change Agents Driving the Process

Stre

ngth

of s

take

hold

er o

wne

rshi

p•

Com

mitm

ent o

f New

Urb

an A

gend

a Pa

rtne

rs•

Stak

ehol

der

part

icip

atio

n•

Tran

spar

ency

of i

nfor

mat

ion

• Et

c

Coor

dina

ted

effor

ts

for i

mpl

emen

tatio

n an

d re

port

ing

on th

e N

ew U

rban

Age

nda

Opp

ortu

nitie

s:U

N-H

abita

t•

Has

the

expe

rtis

e•

Has

key

rel

atio

nshi

ps•

Is r

espe

cted

par

tner

, ca

n en

gage

par

tner

s

AFI

NU

A r

oom

List

en to

citi

es r

oom

/loca

l act

ion

One

UN

roo

mN

etw

orki

ng e

vent

sU

rban

talk

s

Net

wor

king

per

form

edPa

rtne

rshi

p op

port

uniti

esM

OU

Stra

tegi

es

Enha

nced

kno

wle

dge

or s

kills

EA2:

Col

lect

ive

know

ledg

e on

su

stai

nabl

e ur

ban

deve

lopm

ent i

s im

prov

edEA

5: U

N-H

abita

t’s s

trat

egic

pr

ogra

mm

ing

supp

orte

d

Effici

ency

of p

olic

y In

stru

men

ts•

Stre

ngth

ened

UN

-Hab

itat n

orm

. fr

amew

ork

and

oper

atio

ns•

Part

ners

’ pol

icie

s an

d st

rate

gies

co

nsis

tent

with

the

New

Urb

an

Age

nda

• Et

c

UN

-Hab

itat’s

pro

file

rais

ed a

nd it

s kn

owle

dge

base

co

nsol

idat

ed

Inpu

t:•

Hos

t cou

ntry

inpu

t in

kind

and

ca

sh•

Part

ner

fund

ing

• U

n-H

abita

t sta

ff ti

me

and

sala

ries

• Fr

amew

orks

New

Urb

an

Age

nda

SDG

s

Trai

ning

eve

nts

Trai

ning

del

iver

edSu

ppor

t and

tech

nica

l adv

ice

Impr

oved

con

sens

us a

nd te

amw

ork

with

in th

e U

nite

d N

atio

ns s

yste

mEA

3: In

crea

sed

coor

dina

tion

and

coop

erat

ion

with

in th

e U

nite

d N

atio

ns

syst

em

Effec

tiven

ess

of o

rgan

izat

iona

l ar

rang

emen

ts•

Ope

ratio

nal e

ffici

ency

in p

rodu

cing

N

ew U

rban

Age

nda-

rela

ted

outp

uts

• C

omm

unic

atio

ns a

nd s

take

hold

er

rela

tions

• Et

c

Exhi

bitio

ns C

ity e

vent

s W

UF9

vill

age

Tech

nica

l vis

itsPa

ralle

l eve

nts

Urb

an li

brar

y

Side

eve

nts

deliv

ered

Stre

ngth

ened

coa

litio

ns a

nd

enha

nced

net

wor

ks w

ith N

ew U

rban

Ag

enda

Par

tner

sEA

3: In

crea

sed

coor

dina

tion

amon

g di

ffer

ent s

take

hold

ers

Syst

emic

follo

w-u

p of

re

com

men

datio

ns fr

om p

revi

ous

WU

FsA

dmin

istr

ativ

e/ c

omm

unic

atio

n/

med

ia

Qua

lity

and

usef

ul W

UF9

repo

rtIn

crea

sed

impl

emen

tatio

n kn

ow-

how

EA

5: Im

plem

enta

tion

of U

N-H

abita

t’s

Stra

tegi

c Pl

an a

nd W

ork

Prog

ram

me

supp

orte

d

ASSU

MPT

ION

S AN

D R

ISKS

:Fr

om in

put t

o ac

tivity

:Fr

om a

ctiv

ity to

out

put:

From

out

put t

o ou

tcom

e:

From

out

com

e to

impa

ct:

• Pr

omot

es a

ctiv

ities

with

cle

ar

dem

and.

Pol

itica

l will

• Ta

rget

s fu

nds

at a

ctiv

ities

that

su

ppor

t New

Urb

an A

gend

a;

are

inno

vativ

e•

Effici

ent p

roce

sses

tran

sitio

n fr

om a

sses

smen

t to

deliv

ery

• W

UF

stru

ctur

es a

nd s

taff

ca

paci

ties

are

fit fo

r pu

rpos

e•

Acc

ount

abili

ty li

nes,

rol

es a

nd

resp

onsi

bilit

ies

are

clea

r

• U

ses

RB

M to

mon

itor

and

man

age

WU

F ou

tput

s•

Bui

lds

rela

tions

hips

with

st

akeh

olde

rs•

Effec

tivel

y ex

ploi

ts s

yner

gies

• D

isbu

rses

res

ourc

es in

a

timel

y m

anne

r•

Man

date

s cl

early

dem

arca

ted

• Pa

rtne

rs a

lign

with

WU

F ob

ject

ives

• Eff

ectiv

ely

mob

ilize

s re

sour

ces

• Su

ppor

ts w

ider

UN

ass

ista

nce

• Fi

nds

syne

rgie

s w

ith r

elev

ant

initi

ativ

es•

Sele

cts

the

mos

t eff

ectiv

e in

terv

entio

ns u

sing

RB

M•

Del

iver

s ou

tcom

es th

at c

an b

e at

trib

uted

to th

e W

UF9

• C

oord

inat

ion,

com

mun

icat

ion

and

colla

bora

tion

are

optim

al

• Is

abl

e to

ach

ieve

tran

sfor

mat

ive

chan

ge in

inst

itutio

ns•

Use

s ad

voca

cy to

influ

ence

the

wid

er d

ebat

e•

UN

-Hab

itat’s

sen

ior

man

agem

ent

effec

tivel

y st

eers

WU

F re

sults

• W

UF9

impa

cts

on th

e ge

nera

l pu

blic

• D

ecis

ion

mak

er -

chan

ge a

gent

s ar

e ab

le to

app

ly th

eir

new

kno

wle

dge

and

mot

ivat

e pa

rtne

rs


UNITED NATIONS HUMAN SETTLEMENTS PROGRAMMEP.O. Box 30030, Nairobi 00100, KenyaT: +254-20-76263120 E: [email protected]

UN-HABITAT

@un-habitat

www.unhabitat.org